Hi Wim, On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Wim Hueskes <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > You are absolutely correct and thank you very much for pointing that out. :) > > 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. > Noted and I guess we will be accountable if something like this happens in the future. > > 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 I completely understand the concern and now I feel it will be best to leave this library aside. Because as Gary has pointed out earlier we will not be the only ones who will modify our work and we cannot assume the third parties who will alter our code will completely read, understand and adhere to the licenses of third party libraries that we are shipping with the code. So after seriously considering all the things that have been pointed out in this thread, I conclude, given this enhancement that I proposed is not critical to the project, we can safely put it aside if there are no objections. Thanks, Dammina
