Re: Google use clause conflicting with Apache 2.0
Apologies for the delayed reply.
"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.
Unfortunately, upstream never provided a definite answer to anyone asking about the licence.
> Alternatively, there is an active fork , 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.
Good to know.
For content reasons it might be a good idea.
Agreed. I’ll package the fork.