Re: Bug#1135097: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

On 02/05/26 04:20, Charles Plessy wrote:
> SIL OFL 1.1             309

Hi, does license-count distinguish between plain OFL (SPDX: 
OFL-1.1-no-RFN) and OFL with Reserved Font Name (SPDX: OFL-1.1-RFN)? Or 
does this mean "OFL 1.1 with or without RFN" (SPDX: OFL-1.1)?

OFL-1.1-no-RFN definitely belongs in the list of common licenses, 
OFL-1.1-RFN cannot be included because the Reserved Font Name is part of 
the license (so a single text cannot suffice), and the ambiguous OFL-1.1 
is kind of problematic because Debian must follow different rules for 
no-RFN and RFN fonts. (Although, truth be told, at the moment the 
archive is not really "clean" from this point of view.)

Regards,