Hi Gary, I completely agree with your point of view. I will try to include binary form of the code licensed under SIL OFL and check whether it will work.
Thanks, Dammina On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Gary <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Dammina Sahabandu SSE, AdroitLogic (pvt) Ltd. Committer, Apache Software Foundation AMIE (SL) Bsc Eng Hons (Moratuwa) +94716422775
