Closed Bug 1076904 Opened 5 years ago Closed 5 years ago

modules/freetype2 needs a FTL LICENSE file

Categories

(Core :: Layout: Text and Fonts, defect)

defect
Not set

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla36

People

(Reporter: gerv, Assigned: jfkthame)

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

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
roc: who's the right person for this?

Gerv
Flags: needinfo?(roc)
Jonathan Kew?
Flags: needinfo?(roc) → needinfo?(jfkthame)
Attachment #8516657 - Flags: review?(gerv)
Assignee: nobody → jfkthame
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
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+
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)
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)
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?
Yep, WFM.

Gerv
OK, here's a second version of the patch for your reviewing pleasure. :)
Attachment #8516674 - Flags: review?(gerv)
Attachment #8516657 - Attachment is obsolete: true
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+
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.
Keywords: checkin-needed
OS: Linux → All
Hardware: x86 → All
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d3e330ef99c9
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla36
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.