Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > - Atom File Icons Plugin MIT LICENSE > > Actually the term "MIT license" is a confusion for two similar > but not identical license. One is the X11 license and the other is the > Expat license. Would you please distinguish them? > See https://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html. In both cases where the overview said "MIT License", it is actually the Expat license: https://github.com/file-icons/atom/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/domtronn/all-the-icons.el/blob/master/LICENSE > > The fonts are just packaged up SVG image files from the above named icon > > sets (e.g. Material Icons). > > I can see various meanings for "package up SVG files", and it can make > a difference regarding copyright. > > One meaning is that some entity A released SVG files > and another entity B packaged them as fonts. Is that what you mean? > If so, which one put the license on the fonts? 1. In this case, the fonts were released with the same license that was originally used for the SVG files: https://google.github.io/material-design-icons/#licensing 2. In two cases, the icons were actually originally released both as SVG files, and as fonts using the previously stated license: https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/erikflowers/weather-icons#licensing https://github.com/file-icons/atom 3. In this case, the original files used expat: https://github.com/primer/octicons/blob/main/LICENSE But the font is released using SIL Open Font License. From some cursory research online, it seems like this may also have been released by the original copyright holder using the SIL license at some point, but I'm not sure. 4. Finally, the custom made font uses the Expat license: https://github.com/domtronn/all-the-icons.el/blob/master/LICENSE
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I'm sure we can use this one way or another. Is all the material available in a way that avoids the SIL font license? It is better to avoid that if possible. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> Is all the material available in a way that avoids the SIL font license?
> It is better to avoid that if possible.
It looks like that, yes. I'll make sure to specifically avoid the SIL
font license when possible in my in-development library icons.el.
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 834 bytes --] On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:39 PM Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote: > Is all the material available in a way that avoids the SIL font license? > It is better to avoid that if possible. Out of curiosity, what makes the SIL licence something to be avoided? The GNU project licenses list (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html) doesn't mention anything that makes me think it should be avoided, and in fact it suggests to me that the SIL license is one of the better choices. (This is largely academic to me at this point, but in my other work-life, we almost released some content-specific icons as part of a font, so I looked a bit to make sure that there was reasonable libre license, and SIL seemed to be a reasonable choice. If something changed or I missed something, I'm interested.) Thanks in advance, ~Chad [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1305 bytes --]
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > Is all the material available in a way that avoids the SIL font license? > > It is better to avoid that if possible. > It looks like that, yes. I'll make sure to specifically avoid the SIL > font license when possible in my in-development library icons.el. It is desirable to avoid the SIL font license, but it isn't crucial. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > Out of curiosity, what makes the SIL licence something to be avoided? The problem is described explicily in the item in https://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html. It is not disastrous, but it is annoying. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)