Copyright notice changes (dates and names) number also need to be synchronised across the various font sources.  This change should be reflected with corresponding versionning bumps.

The README should be updated and probably turned into a FONTLOG.

9b219d0ebc2bb52c5367b40419b953c185d6d8cd changed the licensing metadata but the README file (which is really the FONTLOG) still mentions the previous license.

This README file also mentions eot formats which have been dropped from the git master tree: if webfonts are going to be part of the tree then WOFF is the preferred open format.

The NEWS file should be merged in the FONTLOG Changelog section and contributors are best acknowledged in the corresponding FONTLOG section. 001.001 is the version in the metadata but NEWS has 0.0.1. The various recent changes should be indicated in a version bump. Using the Changelog section in the FONTLOG helps against these discrepancies. 

The Copyright statement in COPYING does not match the Copyright statement across the various font sources: dates and copyright holders are different. 

These remaining licensing issues should be fixed before release.

Seems like "footnote [6]" is left over in the README.

Thanks.

See bug #644201 for versionning issues throughout the sources.

I have been over the files and believe this is all fixed.

Feel free to reopen if there is one more place we forgot :)

Created attachment 184093 [details]
minor fixes for README/NEWS merged into FONTLOG

Thanks for the helpful updates. 


A few extra comments though: 

- README has Windows end-of-lines
- A few typos and layout bugs (like changelog alphabetical ordering)
- README should be renamed to FONTLOG.txt
- the content of the NEWS file tracking the releases is very useful to have in the FONTLOG.txt 
See attached suggested FONTLOG.txt

- Where are the Oblique and Bold Oblique sources? They are mentionned in the README but not available, if they are dropped or kept private they probably shouldn't be mentionned.

- FONTLOG acknowledgements:
Authors of the scripts in scripts/ are not credited in the FONTLOG.
Maybe William Jon McCann should be credited for the initial build system?
He's also listed in the .doap as maintainer. 

- The license is not "copied below". While the OFL model would allow it as the license text and notice are part of the tarball in a stand-alone text file, the reasoning of dropping the full text of the license in the sfd font sources is less than ideal as a tradeoff. Maybe some Kb saved but no knowledge of rights propagated to users and downstream branchers who may get just a font file and not the full tarball. There are fields designed for that in the OpenType and in WOFF why not make use of them? If size for web usage is a factor you probably want to provide WOFF versions.

- Does the for-profit company holding the copyright have public policies around taking in external patches and/or requiring copyright assignements for future development or not? Has this been discussed by the GNOME maintainers and measured up to the current GNOME policy?

- There is a discrepancy between 0.0.5 as the general release versioning and 0.05 in the font sources.

Thanks!

Hi, did you get a chance to look at the extra comments? Thanks.

I addressed some of the low hanging fruit. Unsure about complying with both the GNOME infrastructure and the OFL conventions wrt README/FONTLOG.txt. I agree with your point about embedding the license. But most of these points should be addressed by Dave. /me throws a hot potato towards Dave.

ping? maybe this bug should be re-opened?