updated copyright file for two packages
Greetings,
I have updated the copyright file for two packages.
fonts-sil-scheherazadenew is now at version 3.200, and can be placed in
the NEW queue by a DD. The package has been built on Salsa.
fonts-sil-awami-nastaliq is now at version 2.200, and I have uploaded
this package to ftp-master.
Both packages have updates made in d/copyright for the OFL-FAQ.txt file.
The rational for this change is a response to uploading version 3.000 of
fonts-sil-scheherazadenew[0]. A short comment on this change is "the
OFL-FAQ is helpful to explain the practicalities of using and modifying
OFL-licensed fonts, it should be distributed widely but remain the
canonical version as published on https://scripts.sil.org/OFL";
The details of the upstream position are
We have now clarified the license of the OFL-FAQ.txt file. (please note
there was already a copyright statement present and an implicit
restricted no-modification license). We have now made it clearer (with a
simple verbatim-like license like is used for the GPL) but the intent
stays the same.
The OFL-FAQ is not under an open license because placing it under such a
license would likely create legal issues and confusion for those using
the license, as the OFL-FAQ is widely regarded as being authoritative
regarding the interpretation of the OFL. Potential forks could make
additions, removals, or changes that could lead to misinterpretation.
There is only one canonical OFL-FAQ. This has been the case for many
years. There have been versioned updates over the years (including the
recent 1.1-update6) but only published by the maintainers of the OFL.
For these reasons the OFL-FAQ remains copyright (c) SIL International
and must remain under a non-modification license agreement. But we are
absolutely fine with wider copying and distributing - that's the whole
point: providing practical explanations and answers to questions about
how the license should be working. But unlike other files it is only an
explanation of the license and while it's not legally required to be
present, it is very helpful for understanding the license.
[0]
https://lists.debian.org/debian-fonts/2020/11/msg00052.html
--
Bobby de Vos
/bobby_devos@sil.org/
Reply to: