It seems like the only place we're using Font Awesome is for a link icon which appears on hover at some part of the site. We could replace this fairly easily with the Apache-2.0 licensed Unicons. However, it would be a shame to have to roll a new RC for this. I'm inclined to take the RFC 2119 interpretation of should and fix after the release unless there are any strong objections. -- Michael Mior [email protected]
Le dim. 23 juin 2019 à 07:11, Vladimir Sitnikov <[email protected]> a écrit : > > It looks like Calcite 1.20 violates ASF licensing policy. > > The violation is "font-awesome:fonts" which is licensed as > http://fontawesome.io/license (Font: SIL OFL 1.1, CSS: MIT License) > > OFL 1.1 is "category B" (see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-112 > ) > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#binary-only-inclusion-condition > > resolved.html>Unless otherwise specified, all Category B licensed works > should be included in binary-only form > in Apache Software Foundation convenience binaries (and not source code). > > Does that mean we should somehow remove "fonts" part of "font-awesome" from > Calcite source release? > > Vladimir
