License information is missing

[jonasstein]

Where do these files come from?
What is the license?
Who are the authors?

[galexbh]

in AUR contains all these sources. As for the license I think they are not free... but this solves the problem so I do not complain either.

[cmahte]

The license info mentions "per the EULA". There are 132 forks of this project, most of them non English speakers.

Eventually there's going to be an audit somewhere that traces back to here.

At a minimum, you should mention to use this project, one should probably be by folks who are up-to-date current with their WPS Office license.

Probably unrelated: I see people complaining from China to Microsoft Typography Forum that when they tried to send stuff to printer, they get feedback that they are using fonts without license, demands for money, and threats of lawsuits. Microsoft (typography forum... the people who maintain the OpenType specification) isn't interested, but Microsoft (China legal team) probably is.

So, what this project represents is probably legit. But 132 out of 132 forks from this project are questionable. is there culpability? Making something public on github with only a passing mention in the readme to go somewhere else for a license, which after you click through doesn't mention exactly what license it says to read.... putting a license "use of this project restricted to paid licenseees of WPS Office" would be a great place to start a CYA. I read english clearly, and figured out actually using these without a paid WPS license is trouble. But for ESL and non-English speakers... you could make it a little less likely to land them in trouble.