Hi Gary, Your understanding is correct, the icons are delivered as fonts. Therefore the font license is applied and we should include that in our NOTICE file.
Here I have quoted the license conditions of font license [1]. "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy, merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and unmodified copies of the Font Software, subject to the following conditions: 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy contains the above copyright notice and this license. These can be included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or in the appropriate machine-readable metadata fields within text or binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user. 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the primary font name as presented to the users. 4) The name(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) or the Author(s) of the Font Software shall not be used to promote, endorse or advertise any Modified Version, except to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) and the Author(s) or with their explicit written permission. 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and must not be distributed under any other license. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software." Condition 1, 3 and 4 does not apply to us. According to condition 2 and 5, as per my understanding as long as we include the copyright notice and keep the license header intact in library files, we are allowed to use and distribute the library with Apache Bloodhound. However I will refer this to one of my lawyer friends to get more insight on this and let you know. [1] http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web Thanks, Dammina On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Gary <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/10/16 09:25, Gary wrote: > >> On 06/10/16 18:54, Dammina Sahabandu wrote: >> >>> Hi Gary, >>> >>> Thank you for the positive feedback :) And I agree with mentioning the >>> library in the NOTICE file. As we do not maintain a THIRD_PARTY_LICENSE >>> file, legally that would be enough AFAIK. However I'm not exactly clear >>> about the role of .rat-ignore file. Is it the configuration file for >>> defining files to be ignored when running the Apache Rat tool? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dammina >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Gary <[email protected] <mailto: >>> [email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> On 03/10/16 19:46, Dammina Sahabandu wrote: >>> >>> Hi Devs, >>> >>> To provide a better user experience I propose to use icons >>> from Font >>> Awesome icon library [1]. At the moment Apache Bloodhound >>> utilize the >>> limited set of icons provided by Bootstrap glyphicons. However >>> Font Awesome >>> provide a wider range of icons that we can effectively utilize >>> and make the >>> UI better. >>> >>> Font Awesome library is licensed under MIT license [2]. >>> Therefore I don't >>> think there are any legal barriers. And I hope it will be a >>> cool UX >>> improvement for the next release of the project. Please share >>> your view on >>> this. >>> >>> [1] http://fontawesome.io/icons/ <http://fontawesome.io/> >>> [2] http://fontawesome.io/license/ >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dammina >>> >>> >>> Sounds good to me - obviously the normal things apply about >>> ensuring that we acknowledge in appropriate places (the NOTICE >>> file I believe) that this component is included and under which >>> license. There may also be changes required in the .rat-ignore >>> file but we can work that out later. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> >> Yes, that is right. There is no particular need to worry about it >> immediately though. I'll check at some point if the automated build to >> check licenses is actually running. >> >> Cheers, >> Gary >> >> > Looking again at their licensing, it is probably also worth checking the > compatibility of the font license - http://scripts.sil.org/OFL - as I > think that might be the way that the icons are delivered rather than from > an image. To be fair, I did not look that hard so I could easily be wrong > and there is a fair chance that it will be fine. > > Cheers, > Gary > -- Dammina Sahabandu SSE, AdroitLogic (pvt) Ltd. Committer, Apache Software Foundation AMIE (SL) Bsc Eng Hons (Moratuwa) +94716422775
