Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB625F566 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 31387 invoked by uid 500); 13 Apr 2013 13:18:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 31040 invoked by uid 500); 13 Apr 2013 13:18:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 31003 invoked by uid 99); 13 Apr 2013 13:18:26 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:18:26 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.111.4.27] (HELO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.27) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:18:21 +0000 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C06521493; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 09:18:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 13 Apr 2013 09:18:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= daniel.shahaf.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=8Fn8S0ZdlRvSK2jykLTksSjf+uo=; b=oRHYh lQTfvtxhK87znwKDQ7jDPcR89CL4n+6mROkiMlUXrqhn4aRx7GRvj+APnScecTtu xk0SlcoTIaO6TIRa/iKkYhEYWyHseTfsF9cD4VvYocSHcwrMT9Gs3qQWl+grN+IG PDDqyNstdXTxwuDoXVRYqyxjjpyltF2G1F6XU8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=8Fn8S0ZdlRvSK2jykLTksSjf+uo=; b=Nl4Q NXGffoRwJaLvB4n7B9D+CEsp7EGRrybcrRBCbyr1zrA6Q+kyNeZZ3WKPOGHOPQ1q u738UBTDmZjKWbQAslMKyDjQRgDPUsulcYOxb5FGH7bTavqqAAxpsebdVHcGHNRa uVvTX4sBx/Yzazan5Bxazw1qgFrBVTulXa4AelQ= X-Sasl-enc: /f/bgokz8x4rymz+PpiHpp6ruNaGWhrejae0v2i0bMVF 1365859079 Received: from lp-shahaf.local (unknown [79.180.177.35]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8AD53C80005; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 09:17:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:17:54 +0300 From: Daniel Shahaf To: Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lehmk=FChler_=28JIRA=29?= Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: Re: [jira] [Created] (LEGAL-163) Are "Ubuntu License 1.0" licensed fonts allowed in the repo Message-ID: <20130413131754.GB3068@lp-shahaf.local> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Andreas Lehmk�hler (JIRA) wrote on Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:10:15 +0000: > Is it ok to ship them as part of the source tarball? -1 (not binding). The license is viral so not ALv2-compatible. > [1] http://font.ubuntu.com/licence/ Why did Ubuntu invent a new license? Surely they are aware of the issues around license proliferation. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org