[Pkg-fonts-devel] New licensing of fontforge

Fabian Greffrath fabian at debian.org
Sat Apr 30 19:44:07 UTC 2016

Hi again,

Am Sonntag, den 24.04.2016, 12:47 +0530 schrieb Vasudev Kamath:
> Basically if Xlib.h is missing then this part is used which is from
> Xlib.h file with Open Group Public License
> If we have proper dependency this #else block will not be considered,
> so
> how do we interpret the licensing? :-). License check tool tells me
> the
> file BSD-3-clause.

regardless of the CPP macro being defined or not, we distribute the
file as a whole in the source code, so the license of the entire file
needs to be documented. So, I would say, we have two copyright holders
and two licenses (BSD-3-clause and Open Group Public License) which
apply for this file.

Don't get fooled by licensecheck, it doesn't have a clue about complex
licensing situations like this.

> Both Open Group License and above license looks like permissive
> license
> but I'm confused on how to interpret the licensing of the entire
> file.

Again, it contains code by two authors, so it has two copyright
holders. Also, by distributing the entire file, we have to adhere to
two licenses at once, so both of them should show up in the License

> Any suggestions are welcome.

Hope that helps, I am not a lawyer!

> Well not really :-). If we want a proper copyright there is lot more
> to do :(.

Sure. But there seem to be broad rules with only a few select
exceptions. Anyway, thank you very much for working on this! This is
highly appreciated.

 - Fabian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20160430/e4c808c9/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list