Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <506AD659.60205@gknw.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:56:09 -0700
From: Gregg Smith <gls@gknw.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: "Powered by" icon for httpd-2.4 needs update
References: <506AC975.2060201@redhat.com> <506AD2FC.7040401@cord.dk>
In-Reply-To: <506AD2FC.7040401@cord.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/2/2012 4:41 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Yes, this does seem to be something that needs fixing.
> If people are content with this suggestion, I can turn it into png/gif
> images and put them in the docs folder in trunk as well as the svg
> version. Or if the original author still has the original material,
> he/she can make the necessary changes, I'm fine with whichever it is.
>

Been there, done that, have it still. What stopped it then was the font. 
What license is the font under.
It begs me to ask what the license of the font currently in use is.

So this leads me to again ask the question, what font license is acceptable?

I can get plenty close with a font from the Open Font Library, it is 
licensed under the SIL Open Font License 1.1
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL

There is only one ugly blog font licensed under the Apache 2.0 License 
that I have found.
So if we are going to hold out for the AL2.0, we should be fontless.

Regards,
Gregg