[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Google use clause conflicting with Apache 2.0

Hi Hugh

On 23.08.19 16:30, Hugh McMaster wrote:
> In the ITP thread, Jonas pointed out that Google requests users of the
> font to not sell the icons – a request that is seemingly incompatible
> with the Apache 2.0 licence.
> Unfortunately, there is no official clarification on this conflict,
> although non-official interpretations say Google just don’t want people
> reselling the icons by themselves.
> How should I manage this conflict with the Apache 2.0 licence?

I guess you refer to
We have made these icons available for you to incorporate into your
products under the Apache License Version 2.0. Feel free to remix and
re-share these icons and documentation in your products. We'd love
attribution in your app's about screen, but it's not required. The only
thing we ask is that you not re-sell these icons.

 "We'd love attribution [...], but it's not required."
the next sentence
 "The only thing [...]"
seems to be a real requirement (practically being a part of the license).

But a clarification from upstream would indeed be helpful.  Both the
language ("ask") and the split over separate files is at least confusing.

> Alternatively, there is an active fork [2], which contains Google’s font
> files with fixes for missing icons etc., but no icon files or images.
> Thefork is licensed with Apache 2.0 as well, but with no extra clauses.
> Is it more sensible (and feasible) to package the fork instead of the
> official package?

For license reasons: no, a fork can't change the license without
upstream's consent.  But looking at the fork's README.md I see the same
paragraph there anyway.

For content reasons it might be a good idea.


Reply to: