www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: What constitutes a source release?
Date Thu, 02 May 2013 21:23:11 GMT
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> We may very well have to look at each specific font to determine what
>> the "preferred form for making modifications" would be.
> FYI, I downloaded the Ubuntu font source (ubuntu-font-family-sources_0.80.orig.tar.gz)
from http://font.ubuntu.com/resources/
> The build process is described in the file sources/SOURCES.txt. The "build" process requires
 tools such as:
>   http://www.microsoft.com/typography/tools/vtt.aspx
>   http://www.microsoft.com/typography/tools/tools.aspx
>   http://www.fontlab.com/font-editor/fontlab-studio/
> As far as I can tell (and this is all new to me), the files that are used in building
the final Ubuntu fonts are not contained within the binary distribution of the fonts. The
binary distribution does not contain the "source" (e.g. *.vfb, *-hinting.ttf, and a .cfg file)
which is used for producing the ubuntu fonts. AFAIK, this doesn't mean you couldn't use the
ubuntu font family to produce a new font. But does not appear to be the preferred form…
> My personal opinion, the exposure seems minimal, here. And I tend to think of these files
like I might treat other media files (e.g. a .gif file produced by a paint application).

First, a huge thanks for doing the analysis!  It truly is helpful.

However, I do want to point out that "exposure" is probably not the
right focus here.  The license gives permission to distribute these
fonts, subject to a number of conditions.  I'm satisfied that we both
intend to and are capable of meeting those conditions.  Assuming that
we do so, the exposure is indeed minimal.

The concern isn't one of exposure, but rather one of ASF policy.  I've
already updated the website[1] to indicate that we have found
consensus on this license being considered Category B, and that page
indicates what ASF policy allows PMCs to do with artefacts made
available under such a license.

Taken all together, the original question[2] can now be re-posed thus:

  Should ASF policy allow object form Category B artefacts to be
checked into SVN?

Mark Thomas[3] gave his input yesterday on this topic.

We can chose to collectively accept that input, post it to our
website, and make it official policy.  Or people can chose to
challenge that input.  Or we can seek narrowly crafted exceptions.

It is not my intent to state that any of those three are the preferred
approach.  I'm merely trying to focus the discussion on the remaining

> --kevan

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-163
[3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3C5180D39C.6020401%40apache.org%3E

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

View raw message