Hi Gary, Only the files inside the fonts directory of downloadable bundle [1] are licensed under SIL OFL license. There are 5 binary files and one textual file inside the "fonts" directory.
- FontAwesome.otf - binary - fontawesome-webfont.ttf - binary - fontawesome-webfont.woff2 - binary - fontawesome-webfont.eot - binary - fontawesome-webfont.svg - textual - fontawesome-webfont.woff - binary The fontawesome-webfont.svg file can be converted into a .png file. WDYT? [1] http://fontawesome.io/assets/font-awesome-4.6.3.zip On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Dammina Sahabandu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Dammina Sahabandu SSE, AdroitLogic (pvt) Ltd. Committer, Apache Software Foundation AMIE (SL) Bsc Eng Hons (Moratuwa) +94716422775
