www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bundling an AL Font
Date Thu, 26 Jun 2014 03:31:54 GMT
Hard to be completely prescriptive... I don't recall an explicit discussion
on this point.

Anyway, the LICENSE update isn't strictly required (and is not required by
the instructions). I find it to be convenient, when consuming artifacts.
Others may have their opinions... When looking for license information, I
wouldn't be looking in the README, but that's your project's decision...

--kevan


On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>  Hi Kevan,
>
>  Thanks for being patient with me.  That's what I meant by "undocumented"
> and outside the "normal process".  The documents don't support adding
> mention of included ALv2 artifacts to LICENSE, but there is precedence
> elsewhere.  The documents seem to imply that the consumer should assume
> that everything in a package is ALv2 unless otherwise noted, even for
> things that are non-text like media/fonts.
>
>  Do you have any thoughts on putting such mention in README vs LICENSE?
>  For me, putting information about the iicense and copyright of the fonts
> in the README would escape criticism from any hard-liner who uses the
> how-to document to say that we shouldn't have messed with the LICENSE.
>
>  Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>   From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:58 AM
>
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Bundling an AL Font
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess I'm still confused:  I believe your current recommendation is to
>> modify the LICENSE and not touch the NOTICE.
>
>
> If I recall correctly, you (or maybe Justin) were concerned about making
> it clear to users that the font was included. Adding the note to the
> LICENSE is (IMO) a good way to do this. According to the process described
> in the documents, you don't need to do this. But I've known multiple
> projects that make note of the ALv2 artifacts that they include (when they
> are not produced directly by the ASF or the project, itself).
>
>  --kevan
>

Mime
View raw message