On 07/10/16 17:55, Dammina Sahabandu wrote:
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
It is worth remembering that there may be implications of licenses that,
while they don't apply directly to us, could apply to others that use or
modify our work. Even reading condition 1 makes me wonder at the
appropriateness of the license because of how it also needs to be
respected by downstream users.
Anyway, in this case the appropriate legal advice is that which the ASF
provides. I think the correct place to look for the information we need
is here: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
In particular: "software under the [SIL Open Font License] may be
included in binary form within an Apache project if the inclusion is
appropriately labeled." There is also some justification of the position
in that section.
So, if we can ensure that we only include a binary form of the font and
add the appropriate notice, I think all should be fine with that.
Obviously the MIT licensed components can be included in source form as
we already knew.
This is all part of the fun of bringing in a new component with a
license you don't recognise!
Cheers,
Gary
