SixLabors.Fonts v2.0.0 changed to Commercial License

[dbuhl]

Read and complete the full issue template

Do not randomly delete sections. They are here for a reason.

Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?

• Bug
• Feature
• Question

Did you test against the latest CI build?

• Yes
• No

If you answered No, please test with the latest development build first.

Version of ClosedXML

1.0.0

What is the current behavior?

Works with SixLabors.Fonts 1.0.0 >

What is the expected behavior or new feature?

Will ClosedXML eventually require the SixLabors.Fonts v2.0.0 or greater as this changes to a commercial license from the Apache License? This is an important question for future planning for out application. I would assume this will become an issue for most users of the library if this should occur.

Is this a regression from the previous version?

N/A

Reproducibility

N/A

Without a code sample, it is unlikely that your issue will get attention. Don't be lazy. Do the effort and assist the developers to reproduce your problem. Code samples should be minimal complete and verifiable. Sample spreadsheets should be attached whenever applicable. Remove sensitive information.

Code to reproduce problem:

// N/A

• I attached a sample spreadsheet. (You can drag files on to this issue)

[jahav]

I do not plan on using SixLabors.Fonts 2.0.0. The primary reason is lack of support for netstandard 2.0.

For now, I plan to keep dependency on SixLabors.Fonts 1.0.0 and investigate SkiaSharp as a likely replacement. No concrete timeline, I would prefer to spend time on other things, but if a security bug or some other high priority issue appears, it will get priority.

SkiaSharp also means the Blazor applications with WebAssembly wouldn't be able to use it (though there is an extension point), because it's a wrapper over native Skia library. I think SkiaShap is basically the only library left, based on past research into alternatives (#1805).

As for the SixLabors.Fonts split license, users of ClosedXML would likely be covered by Transitive Package Dependency clause, though lack of netstandard 2.0 makes this a moot point to investigate further. I also understand the reluctance of that license in a chain of dependencies, so switch would likely came up anyway.

This is just another fallout out of abandonement of System.Drawing.Common by Microsoft. The direction of SixLabors.Fonts (net6 only, split license) was clear from ImageSharp, but I hoped I would have more time than a single month between 1.0 and 2.0. Thankfully, after the last time, the code was isolated behind an interface, so it should be easier to switch.

Sidenote: if DocumentFormat.OpenXml dumps netstandard 2.0, ClosedXML will have to move as well. For now, they plan on keeping netstandard 2.0 even for 3.0 (ROADMAP.md: Investigate simplifying target frameworks to .NET 4.6, .NET Standard 2.0, and .NET 6)