www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Bundling an AL Font
Date Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:45:31 GMT
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<mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:58 AM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Bundling an AL Font


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com<mailto: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