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

Re: Google use clause conflicting with Apache 2.0

Hi Jens,

Apologies for the delayed reply.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 1:17 am, Jens Reyer wrote:
I guess you refer to

 "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 [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.

Good to know.

For content reasons it might be a good idea.

Agreed. I’ll package the fork.


Reply to: