[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev]  Re: media-fonts/droid licensing: should fonts include
From:       Ben de Groot <yngwin () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2008-08-28 11:17:39
Message-ID: 48B68953.7020402 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:25:42 +0400
> Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hello.
>>
>> There are droid fonts package in the tree. Author states that they are
>> apache licensed [1] (supposedly similar to google's android sdk) but
>> license itself is not included in the package (only .ttf files are
>> there). Should we RESTRICT="mirror" in such case or it's safe to drop
>> such restriction?
>>
>> [1]
>> http://damieng.com/blog/2007/11/14/droid-sans-mono-great-coding-font
>>
>> Thank you for any hints,
> 
> RESTRICT=mirror is probably the safest bet.  Both Apache licenses
> require a copy to be included when redistributing, source or binary.
> 
> PS. Badger him into switching to OFL while you're at it. ;)
> 
> 
It's not up to him. The droid fonts are taken from Google's Android SDK,
which, as I understand it, is (or is going to be) licensed under the
APL2. As long as this situation is unclear, and/or the fonts are
redistributed without the proper license included, we should keep the
mirror restriction.



["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]