Hi Dammina, I saw your message including this question:
> The fontawesome-webfont.svg file can be converted into a .png file. WDYT? I think that is something which you should not do. I'll try to explain; You want to avoid non-binary files based on this text: >> 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. The main justifications is that there is less exposed surface to create a derived work. But when you create a .png from a .svg, you do create a derived work. So you do exactly what must be avoided. But also read the text of the SIL OFL license. Condition 3 forbids you to use the original font name if you create a modified version. (unless you ask for permission). So you would have to rename the font and also license it under the SIL OFL. The goal to use only binary files is based on the assumption that non-binary files can easily be modified, and binary files not. In this case it is different. Software like FontForge[1] can easily modify those binary files like .ttf and woff2. In particular the .svg file is likely not the source file belonging to those binary files. So I don't believe there is a larger risk of someone editing the .svg compared to - for example - the .ttf file. You might add the svn:needs-lock attribute to svn for the files licensed under the SIL OFL. It will be checked out read-only by default, so you will get a warning if you try to modify it. Cheers, Wim [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FontForge On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Dammina Sahabandu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
