Closed
Bug 1076904
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
modules/freetype2 needs a FTL LICENSE file
Categories
(Core :: Layout: Text and Fonts, defect)
Core
Layout: Text and Fonts
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla36
People
(Reporter: gerv, Assigned: jfkthame)
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
2.62 KB,
patch
|
gerv
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
In the directory modules/freetype2, there are many files which say: /* This file is part of the FreeType project, and may only be used, */ /* modified, and distributed under the terms of the FreeType project */ /* license, LICENSE.TXT. By continuing to use, modify, or distribute */ /* this file you indicate that you have read the license and */ /* understand and accept it fully. */ However, there is no LICENSE.TXT file in any of those directories. Please check in a copy of: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/freetype/freetype2.git/tree/docs/FTL.TXT to modules/freetype2, under the name LICENSE.TXT. Gerv
Jonathan Kew?
Flags: needinfo?(roc) → needinfo?(jfkthame)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8516657 -
Flags: review?(gerv)
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → jfkthame
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8516657 [details] [diff] [review] Include a copy of FreeType's license in the tree. r=gerv. Thanks :-) Gerv
Attachment #8516657 -
Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
Hmm, on looking slightly further at modules/freetype2: In the top-level README, we find the statement "see the file `docs/LICENSE.TXT' for the available licenses".[1] And sure enough, there's a LICENSE.TXT file in the docs subdirectory.[2] This in turn references the individual licenses found in docs/FTL.TXT and docs/GPLv2.TXT. Is that sufficient? (It's a direct copy of what's found upstream.) Or do you still want a LICENSE.TXT checked in to the top level of modules/freetype2 as well? [1] http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/54d05732f29b/modules/freetype2/README#l16 [2] http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/modules/freetype2/docs/LICENSE.TXT
Flags: needinfo?(jfkthame) → needinfo?(gerv)
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
Sorry, I should have been more clear. This is basically because my automated license checker doesn't parse the English in the README. If it sees a license of the type "see file XXX in parent directory", it looks in all parent directories for a file of that name which contains a license. For this directory, it doesn't find one, so throws an error. Sticking a copy of LICENSE.TXT where the source code comments say to expect it seemed like the best fix. Writing special-case code is something I'm trying to avoid. Gerv
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
OK; but I'd suggest it would be less confusing (for humans, if not for your automated checker!) if we just copy modules/freetype2/docs/LICENSE.TXT up to modules/freetype2/LICENSE.TXT rather than copying FTL.TXT under a changed name. That way, the two LICENSE.TXT files would both say the same thing. Would that work for you?
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
Yep, WFM. Gerv
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
OK, here's a second version of the patch for your reviewing pleasure. :)
Attachment #8516674 -
Flags: review?(gerv)
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8516657 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8516674 [details] [diff] [review] Include a copy of FreeType's LICENSE.TXT at the top level of modules/freetype2. Hmm. I guess the reason I think this is less useful is that it doesn't give the license terms. Mozilla is using FreeType2 under the FTL, so it kind of makes sense that the top-level LICENSE file should be the FTL. Still, my checker can detect this, so I'm not too worried. Go with whichever patch you think is best. Gerv
Attachment #8516674 -
Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
Let's go with the second patch, to avoid possible confusion over the filename. Marking as checkin-needed. Note to sheriffs: there's no code here, only a license file, so no try build required.
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/d3e330ef99c9
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 13•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d3e330ef99c9
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla36
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•