You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> on 2011/11/18 06:16:13 UTC
Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Hi;
JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
BTW, there is a minor update available for the dejavu fonts:
http://dejavu-fonts.org/wiki/Main_Page
Pedro.
RE: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1
So long as NOTICE-source is in the SVN and part of the source distribution at
an appropriate level, I think the simple NOTICE[.txt] name is good enough.
But either way the scripting trick is perfect and NOTICE-binary is a great
differentiator.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:54
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I would add
>
> 3) What makes it easy for an adopter of a binary release to know what
> license
> permissions and license conditions and restrictions apply to their use of
> the
> artifact.
>
> I agree about the confusion downstream. It also matters how diligent
> downstream producers are in handling of their own dependencies.
>
Exactly. A diligent downstream consumer will want to make sure their
own notice file is in order, and that presumes our is as well.
Maybe we just have two source files in our SVN:
NOTICE-source and NOTICE-binary
And then have the build script rename the source version when creating
the source tarballs. And concatenate them for the binary release?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:38
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Two considerations:
>
> 1) What is required for Apache notice policy
>
> and
>
> 2) What makes it easier for downstream consumers to comply with
> whatever notice policy they may wish to implement for their releases
>
> Personally I think it is very confusing for downstream consumers if we
> have a notice file filed with notices for modules that are not
> actually included in the release. Not very helpful for them producing
> their own notices.
>
> [ ... ]
>
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I would add
>
> 3) What makes it easy for an adopter of a binary release to know what license
> permissions and license conditions and restrictions apply to their use of the
> artifact.
>
> I agree about the confusion downstream. It also matters how diligent
> downstream producers are in handling of their own dependencies.
>
Exactly. A diligent downstream consumer will want to make sure their
own notice file is in order, and that presumes our is as well.
Maybe we just have two source files in our SVN:
NOTICE-source and NOTICE-binary
And then have the build script rename the source version when creating
the source tarballs. And concatenate them for the binary release?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:38
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Two considerations:
>
> 1) What is required for Apache notice policy
>
> and
>
> 2) What makes it easier for downstream consumers to comply with
> whatever notice policy they may wish to implement for their releases
>
> Personally I think it is very confusing for downstream consumers if we
> have a notice file filed with notices for modules that are not
> actually included in the release. Not very helpful for them producing
> their own notices.
>
> [ ... ]
>
RE: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Rob,
I would add
3) What makes it easy for an adopter of a binary release to know what license
permissions and license conditions and restrictions apply to their use of the
artifact.
I agree about the confusion downstream. It also matters how diligent
downstream producers are in handling of their own dependencies.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:38
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
[ ... ]
Two considerations:
1) What is required for Apache notice policy
and
2) What makes it easier for downstream consumers to comply with
whatever notice policy they may wish to implement for their releases
Personally I think it is very confusing for downstream consumers if we
have a notice file filed with notices for modules that are not
actually included in the release. Not very helpful for them producing
their own notices.
[ ... ]
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> It might work to have a single NOTICE version, as some of the Sun/Oracle
> distributions seemed to do in their THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME files.
>
> E.g.,
>
> The following software may be included in this product: Bitstram
> Vera Fonts; Use of any of this software is governed by the terms
> of the license below:
>
> Bitstream, Inc.
>
> Bitstream Vera Fonts
>
> [ ... ]
>
> The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
> but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be
> sold by itself.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> The following software may be included in this product: MS Runtime
> Libraries; Use of any of this software is governed by the terms of
> the license below:
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> Runtime Libraries
>
> [ ... ]
>
> I have no sense of whether that fits inside the Apache comfort zone for the
> source-code release or it should be an expanded NOTICE that the build process
> includes. The ones that are installed with the binary Sun/Oracle
> distributions have that nice "may be included" (so long as not taken as
> permission). This seems rather specific to the binary distribution.
>
Two considerations:
1) What is required for Apache notice policy
and
2) What makes it easier for downstream consumers to comply with
whatever notice policy they may wish to implement for their releases
Personally I think it is very confusing for downstream consumers if we
have a notice file filed with notices for modules that are not
actually included in the release. Not very helpful for them producing
their own notices.
> I'm thinking that, in my own work, I will split them. The build script can
> put the binary one together from the source one and a supplement that covers
> build/platform-dependent run-time dependencies.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:06
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA burden concerning
>> licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
>>
>> With regard to the NOTICE file. In a binary release, yes. If the work is
>> being embedded somehow and/or installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is
>> included in the executable install location should include it. This applies
>> to third-party category A also. Dependencies on the licenses of other are
>> always acknowledged.
>>
>
> So do we need two versions, one for source releases and another for
> the binary release?
>
> -Rob
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:36
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
>> the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
>> by legal.
>>
>> While here a general question: do we have to mention
>> "Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
>> I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
>> source code for that in in the SVN server or in
>> the releases, we will just use the binaries if
>> they are available.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>
RE: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Rob,
It might work to have a single NOTICE version, as some of the Sun/Oracle
distributions seemed to do in their THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME files.
E.g.,
The following software may be included in this product: Bitstram
Vera Fonts; Use of any of this software is governed by the terms
of the license below:
Bitstream, Inc.
Bitstream Vera Fonts
[ ... ]
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be
sold by itself.
[ ... ]
The following software may be included in this product: MS Runtime
Libraries; Use of any of this software is governed by the terms of
the license below:
Microsoft Corporation
Runtime Libraries
[ ... ]
I have no sense of whether that fits inside the Apache comfort zone for the
source-code release or it should be an expanded NOTICE that the build process
includes. The ones that are installed with the binary Sun/Oracle
distributions have that nice "may be included" (so long as not taken as
permission). This seems rather specific to the binary distribution.
I'm thinking that, in my own work, I will split them. The build script can
put the binary one together from the source one and a supplement that covers
build/platform-dependent run-time dependencies.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:06
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA burden concerning
> licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
>
> With regard to the NOTICE file. In a binary release, yes. If the work is
> being embedded somehow and/or installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is
> included in the executable install location should include it. This applies
> to third-party category A also. Dependencies on the licenses of other are
> always acknowledged.
>
So do we need two versions, one for source releases and another for
the binary release?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:36
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
> [ ... ]
>
> But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
> the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
> by legal.
>
> While here a general question: do we have to mention
> "Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
> I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
> source code for that in in the SVN server or in
> the releases, we will just use the binaries if
> they are available.
>
> Pedro.
>
> Pedro.
>
>
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- On Fri, 11/18/11, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM,
> Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org>
> wrote:
> > I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA
> burden concerning licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
>
:).
>
> > With regard to the NOTICE file. In a binary release,
> yes. If the work is being embedded somehow and/or
> installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is included in the
> executable install location should include it. This
> applies to third-party category A also. Dependencies on
> the licenses of other are always acknowledged.
> >
>
> So do we need two versions, one for source releases and
> another for the binary release?
>
No. Category A applies to both and it doesn't hurt to
mention Category B for source releases too.
I think it would be nice to have sections in the NOTICE
file for both Categories. I can do that.
Pedro.
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA burden concerning licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
>
> With regard to the NOTICE file. In a binary release, yes. If the work is being embedded somehow and/or installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is included in the executable install location should include it. This applies to third-party category A also. Dependencies on the licenses of other are always acknowledged.
>
So do we need two versions, one for source releases and another for
the binary release?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:36
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
> [ ... ]
>
> But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
> the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
> by legal.
>
> While here a general question: do we have to mention
> "Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
> I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
> source code for that in in the SVN server or in
> the releases, we will just use the binaries if
> they are available.
>
> Pedro.
>
> Pedro.
>
>
RE: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA burden concerning licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
With regard to the NOTICE file. In a binary release, yes. If the work is being embedded somehow and/or installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is included in the executable install location should include it. This applies to third-party category A also. Dependencies on the licenses of other are always acknowledged.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:36
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
[ ... ]
But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
by legal.
While here a general question: do we have to mention
"Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
source code for that in in the SVN server or in
the releases, we will just use the binaries if
they are available.
Pedro.
Pedro.
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi;
--- On Fri, 11/18/11, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > Hi;
> >
> > OFL has two big issues:
> > 1) It's copyleft so we cannot put it in the
> repository.
> > 2) It cannot be redistributed on it's own: it has
> > to be bundled with software, so we cannot make it
> > available as and add-on package by itself.
> >
>
> I don't see the problem here. It says, "Neither the
> Font Software nor
> any of its individual components, in Original or Modified
> Versions,
> may be sold by itself." But we're not selling the
> font in any form, bundled or not.
>
Still that is a limitation and I am not sure it fits
within ASF policies. The code produced by the ASF can
be resold and users expect to be able to unbundle and
rebundle as they see fit.
> Why can't we just download it as part of the build
> script? It is not
> in SVN then, and we only include it in the binary release?
>
I think we can do this, yes.
> This looks acceptable per: (1)
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
>
> > The bitstream vera / dejavu fonts are not without
> issues:
> > " ... no copy of one or more of the Font Software
> typefaces
> > may be sold by itself."
> >
>
> Again, we are not selling it "by itself".
>
I think the "no-sell" clause contradicts the
"Software License Criteria".
But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
by legal.
While here a general question: do we have to mention
"Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
source code for that in in the SVN server or in
the releases, we will just use the binaries if
they are available.
Pedro.
Pedro.
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi;
>
> OFL has two big issues:
> 1) It's copyleft so we cannot put it in the repository.
> 2) It cannot be redistributed on it's own: it has
> to be bundled with software, so we cannot make it
> available as and add-on package by itself.
>
I don't see the problem here. It says, "Neither the Font Software nor
any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions,
may be sold by itself." But we're not selling the font in any form,
bundled or not.
Why can't we just download it as part of the build script? It is not
in SVN then, and we only include it in the binary release?
This looks acceptable per:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
> The bitstream vera / dejavu fonts are not without issues:
> " ... no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces
> may be sold by itself."
>
Again, we are not selling it "by itself".
> I have no opinion on how to manage this: it must be reviewed
> by a lawyer, so yes, this absolutely has to be taken to legal.
>
> regards,
>
> Pedro.
>
> --- On Fri, 11/18/11, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Herbert Duerr wrote:
>> > On 18.11.2011 06:16, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> >>
>> >> JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
>> >> https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
>> >
>> > This shows the need that fonts need to be available
>> for bundling with Apache
>> > projects. In my opinion also the popular "Open Font
>> License"
>> > is suitable for that as its conditions fulfill the
>> requirements of a
>> > category-A license.
>> >
>> > What is the process for having the OFL (Open Font
>> License)
>> > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web
>> > be recognized as a category-A license?
>> >
>>
>> Start a discussion on the legal-discuss@ mailing list,
>> asking for Open
>> Font License to be categorized.
>>
>> > Which fonts can be bundled by an Apache project is not
>> only an interesting
>> > topic for productivity apps targeting end users. It is
>> also coming into
>> > focus for servers with the
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Open_Font_Format
>> >
>>
>> Some of the font licenses do not allow modification.
>> So they are not
>> really OSS licenses. But there seems to be permission
>> to use some of
>> these similar to how we treat category-b code. See:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
>>
>>
>> > Herbert
>> >
>>
>
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi;
OFL has two big issues:
1) It's copyleft so we cannot put it in the repository.
2) It cannot be redistributed on it's own: it has
to be bundled with software, so we cannot make it
available as and add-on package by itself.
The bitstream vera / dejavu fonts are not without issues:
" ... no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces
may be sold by itself."
I have no opinion on how to manage this: it must be reviewed
by a lawyer, so yes, this absolutely has to be taken to legal.
regards,
Pedro.
--- On Fri, 11/18/11, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Herbert Duerr wrote:
> > On 18.11.2011 06:16, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >>
> >> JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
> >> https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
> >
> > This shows the need that fonts need to be available
> for bundling with Apache
> > projects. In my opinion also the popular "Open Font
> License"
> > is suitable for that as its conditions fulfill the
> requirements of a
> > category-A license.
> >
> > What is the process for having the OFL (Open Font
> License)
> > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web
> > be recognized as a category-A license?
> >
>
> Start a discussion on the legal-discuss@ mailing list,
> asking for Open
> Font License to be categorized.
>
> > Which fonts can be bundled by an Apache project is not
> only an interesting
> > topic for productivity apps targeting end users. It is
> also coming into
> > focus for servers with the
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Open_Font_Format
> >
>
> Some of the font licenses do not allow modification.
> So they are not
> really OSS licenses. But there seems to be permission
> to use some of
> these similar to how we treat category-b code. See:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
>
>
> > Herbert
> >
>
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 18.11.2011 06:16, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>> JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
>> https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
>
> This shows the need that fonts need to be available for bundling with Apache
> projects. In my opinion also the popular "Open Font License"
> is suitable for that as its conditions fulfill the requirements of a
> category-A license.
>
> What is the process for having the OFL (Open Font License)
> http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web
> be recognized as a category-A license?
>
Start a discussion on the legal-discuss@ mailing list, asking for Open
Font License to be categorized.
> Which fonts can be bundled by an Apache project is not only an interesting
> topic for productivity apps targeting end users. It is also coming into
> focus for servers with the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Open_Font_Format
>
Some of the font licenses do not allow modification. So they are not
really OSS licenses. But there seems to be permission to use some of
these similar to how we treat category-b code. See:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
> Herbert
>
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 18.11.2011 06:16, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
> https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
This shows the need that fonts need to be available for bundling with
Apache projects. In my opinion also the popular "Open Font License"
is suitable for that as its conditions fulfill the requirements of a
category-A license.
What is the process for having the OFL (Open Font License)
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web
be recognized as a category-A license?
Which fonts can be bundled by an Apache project is not only an
interesting topic for productivity apps targeting end users. It is also
coming into focus for servers with the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Open_Font_Format
Herbert
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Actually ...
These Droid fonts dont look suitable for a desktop.
They lack many features, for example, there are no
italics :(.
Pedro.
--- On Fri, 11/18/11, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi;
>
> JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
> https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
>
> BTW, there is a minor update available for the dejavu
> fonts:
> http://dejavu-fonts.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> Pedro.
>