New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Apache license into all font folders (This will live as a dual license with the OFL) #190

Closed
mjabbink opened this Issue Aug 9, 2018 · 18 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@mjabbink
Collaborator

mjabbink commented Aug 9, 2018

@inferno986return

This comment has been minimized.

inferno986return commented Aug 9, 2018

So this means the entire family is officially dual-licensed with Apache? Cool, I'll update the Wikipedia page. :-)

@mjabbink

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

mjabbink commented Aug 9, 2018

yes, dual license.

@BoldMonday

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

BoldMonday commented Aug 10, 2018

I think many font folders are currently missing license.txt with OFL license as well.

@mjabbink

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

mjabbink commented Aug 10, 2018

@alisonjoseph Can you tackle this? If not let me know.
In addition to making sure all the folders include the licenses they should also probably be renamed to:

OFL_license.txt  
and  
Apache_license.txt

@twardoch

This comment has been minimized.

twardoch commented Aug 10, 2018

Github relies on the fact that there is one LICENSE or LICENSE.txt file in the main folder of the repository. This allows Github to "detect" the license. Then, an extra badge appears in the Github UI, and the repo to be found when users are looking for repos licensed under the specific license:

Since Apache 2 is a more liberal license that can be applied to any software, not just fonts, I recommend the following:

  1. Rename the current LICENSE.txt to LICENSE-OFL.txt. This will contain the OFL license that applies to the fonts.

  2. Add LICENSE.txt that contains the Apache 2.0 license. This should be the “default” license for the entire repo — because this way, the scripts and other files in the repo will also have a license. The OFL license can only be applied to fonts, so right now it’s unclear under which license the “other” files are licensed under.

  3. In README.md, change “Plex is an open-source project (OFL) and free to download and use.” to “Plex is an open-source project and free to download and use.”, and at the end, add the following text:


License

All files in this repository, including the source and final font files, are licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. In addition, the source and final font files are also licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1 (OFL) with Reserved Font Name "Plex". You can select which license terms you wish to use, modify and/or further distribute the fonts under.


  1. Create a LICENSE-README.txt file with this text:
All fonts in this directory are licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (see LICENSE-APACHE.txt) and under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1 (OFL) (see LICENSE-OFL.txt). 
  1. In each folder containing the font files, place three files:
  • LICENSE-README.txt with the contents as above
  • LICENSE-APACHE.txt which is the same as LICENSE.txt in the main repo folder.
  • LICENSE-OFL.txt which is the same as LICENSE-OFL.txt in the main repo folder.
@mjabbink

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

mjabbink commented Aug 11, 2018

@twardoch I ran suggestion and copy by our legal team and they agreed so thank you. @alisonjoseph can you guys tackle this?

@alisonjoseph

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

alisonjoseph commented Aug 12, 2018

Yes I can take care of updating this.

@davelab6

This comment has been minimized.

davelab6 commented Aug 13, 2018

@alisonjoseph

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

alisonjoseph commented Aug 21, 2018

FYI I will be removing the apache license today as requested from IBM legal

@BoldMonday

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

BoldMonday commented Aug 21, 2018

@alisonjoseph Any explanation why?

@alisonjoseph

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

alisonjoseph commented Aug 21, 2018

"There are issues we need to discuss if we keep want to have IBM Plex under Apache
IBM Plex hasn’t been authorized for Apache usage yet."

@mjabbink

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

mjabbink commented Aug 21, 2018

@davelab6

This comment has been minimized.

davelab6 commented Aug 23, 2018

The font is OFL and to include the OFL font in other offerings we needed the Apache.

I think this is incorrect. OFL Fonts can be distributed as part of an app bundle or other work, the same as under Apache. It is what the GPL calls 'mere aggregation' - a "combined work under copyright" is not formed by including an OFL font in a work, because the font can be replaced with any other font and the bundle will work the same.

@davelab6

This comment has been minimized.

davelab6 commented Aug 23, 2018

FYI I will be removing the apache license today as requested from IBM legal

Good news! I am very happy to hear this, because I think including anything alongside OFL makes the licensing situation more complex than it should be, which is a big deal in and of itself.

While I didn't proactively object to doing this, I didn't think it is a good idea. There are 2 more, precise and practical, reasons why:

The Apache license is unsuitable for fonts, because when fonts are embedded integrally in documents (like PDFs) under Apache, the Apache terms don't have any special terms for this special kind of redistribution, and according to one's interpretation of the license/situation, one may need to include a copy of the whole Apache license with the document (which sucks.) The OFL has explicit handling of such document embedding.

Additionally, the OFL says that recipients can not redistribute under "any other license," which could be interpreted to mean that anyone getting a copy of IBM Plex under both licenses can only ever redistribute under the OFL anyway.

@mjabbink

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

mjabbink commented Aug 23, 2018

@inferno986return

This comment has been minimized.

inferno986return commented Aug 23, 2018

I'm admittedly still rather confused by this debacle, but I have made an attempt to summarise the situation in the Wikipedia article with a link back to this thread.

@davelab6

This comment has been minimized.

davelab6 commented Aug 23, 2018

I have made an attempt to summarise the situation in the Wikipedia article with a link back to this thread

I'm not sure this is worth noting in the Wikipedia article; it is not important at all (just my personal opinion :)

@mjabbink

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

mjabbink commented Aug 24, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment