www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-163) Are "Ubuntu License 1.0" licensed fonts allowed in the repo
Date Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:30:16 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-163?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13631358#comment-13631358
] 

Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-163:
-------------------------------------

Fonts are an interesting space license wise, terms around 'don't change the name' and 'change
the name if modified' are normal.

Ubuntu's is copyleft (source, build files etc), but the fonts of the Ubuntu license are weak
copyleft. Presuming fonts to be 'binary', could the font files of an Ubuntu font licensed
project be considered category B?
                
> Are "Ubuntu License 1.0" licensed fonts allowed in the repo
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-163
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-163
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Andreas Lehmkühler
>
> We like to include some ubuntu fonts in our testsuite. They are licensed using the "Ubuntu
License 1.0" [1].  
> I'm not a license expert, but it looks ok to me. WDYT? Is it ok to add those as test
resources to out svn repository? Is it ok to ship them as part of the source tarball?
> [1] http://font.ubuntu.com/licence/
> TIA

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message