I am not employed by the WMF nor do I know the relevant policies of the WMF. I am also not a lawyer.
I do not think that the use of Glyphicons is a problem in the case of Chameleon. 1. The Chameleon skin does not actually contain the Glyphicons Halflings font. In fact, it does not even contain the Bootstrap framework. These are pulled in during the installation process. 2. Even if Chameleon were actually containing Bootstrap directly, the use of Glyphicons would be covered by the Bootstrap license. [1] 3. The developers of Bootstrap ask to "include a link back to Glyphicons whenever possible". I am not sure if this has any legal relevance, I do not think so. However, Chameleon contains a link back to the Glyphicons page in its documentation. This admittedly only since a few days. [2] On 19 October 2014 08:05, Ricordisamoa <ricordisa...@openmailbox.org> wrote: > Il 04/09/2014 04:11, Ricordisamoa ha scritto: >> Even if it uses them as >> part of the Twitter Bootstrap, is it legal/fair to embed a piece of software >> (Glyphicons) that cannot be used freely without another piece (Bootstrap)? I do not understand the question. Chameleon uses Twitter Bootstrap, but without Bootstrap? Stephan [1] https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/blob/master/LICENSE [2] https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-skins-chameleon/blob/master/docs/credits.md _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
