www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andreas Lehmkühler (JIRA) <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-163) Are "Ubuntu License 1.0" licensed fonts allowed in the repo
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:50:17 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-163?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13643179#comment-13643179
] 

Andreas Lehmkühler commented on LEGAL-163:
------------------------------------------

According to the linked license text the "Ubuntu License 1.0" is loosely inspired from the
SIL Open Font Licence (OFL). AFAIU the derived license the answer for my question will be
same than for LEGAL-112, which means the "Ubuntu License 1.0" could be added to Category-B.
Is that correct?


                
> 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