On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:14:39AM +0100, Christian Hesse wrote: > John Keeping <[email protected]> on Tue, 2016/02/23 10:07: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Christian Hesse wrote: > > > Your mileage may vary, but for me the old icon looks blurry. The new > > > one is character 0xf08e from OTF font awsome in size 10. > > > The icon color is black, gray level is adjusted via opacity. > > > > What's the licensing status of individual glyphs from Font Awesome? > > IANAL but my reading of the OFL is that it's not compatible with the > > GPL. > > What we have is the icon from awesome font, no? > Probably scaled down from one of the example images? > > http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/icon/external-link/
I didn't realise that, I pointed at Wikipedia when I suggested using an icon in CSS :-) There's a comment on the FontAwesome GitHub repo [1] that gives a lot of sources indicating that the OFL is not compatible with the GPL so I think we should be using something else here, at least in the main distribution. If individual sites want to do something different that's their choice. [1] https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/1124#issuecomment-28703032 > > The nice thing about the icon from Wikipedia is that it's already > > licensed under the GPLv2 so we don't have to worry about whether it's > > compatible (although it might be a good idea to credit the source in a > > comment). > > The wikipedia icon looks different. > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Icon_External_Link.png _______________________________________________ CGit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/cgit
