Tim Riker wrote: > Thomas Viehmann wrote: >> On 2008-09-01 22:35:55.00 Tim Riker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Note: the mentioned fonts are NOT included in this package. >>> None the less, I'll expand the mention of the copyright on the fonts >>> that I'm NOT including. >> You have fonts in both source tarballs and ship them in >> /usr/share/bzflag/fonts/ >> is nonempty in both the testing bzflag and the unstable bzflag-data >> package.
>> (I'll not discuss that you shouldn't be shipping these fonts anyways >> but just find them on the system it runs on.) In the parantheses, I was indeed confused. >> Surely, these fonts have copyright attached to them and hopefully some >> license. > I presume you mean the png image files? These are not fonts, but images. > Fonts would have a ttf extension. Don't you agree? No. The fact that you use a bitmap representation of (the "most common" chars of) the font stored in an image doesn't change the fact that you are essentially shipping a version of the font and need to abide by its license and document copyright and license in debian/copyright. This is also borderline w.r.t. the requirement that everything in Debian must be built from source to be shipped in the .deb. >> Now that I had to look at your packaging again: your -data-package >> misses Replaces/Conflicts with the old bzflag package, too, breaking >> upgrades, but that would be another serious bug to file. > See bug #497520 Indeed. Kind regards T. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
