Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines

["Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa redhat com>]

On 2009-01-28 at 1:05:01 -0500, Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh gmail com> wrote:
> Of course, if the user really wants to, she can investigate the binary
> RPM, and find pointers to the actual license, and go and find the
> license. But we would not be redistributing the license with "each
> copy".
> 
> Please enlighten me.

IMHO, in such a scenario, it is acceptable to put a copy of the license
in each binary RPM. This will not cause conflicts, because it is the
same file in the same location. If this obsoletes the need for a -common
package, then do not create one.

However, the license may be embedded inside the font itself. Might be
worth poking it with FontForge to see. If it is, then this is not necessary.

~spot