Hi Hugh On 23.08.19 16:30, Hugh McMaster wrote: > In the ITP thread, Jonas pointed out that Google requests users of the > font to not sell the icons – a request that is seemingly incompatible > with the Apache 2.0 licence. > > Unfortunately, there is no official clarification on this conflict, > although non-official interpretations say Google just don’t want people > reselling the icons by themselves. > > How should I manage this conflict with the Apache 2.0 licence?
I guess you refer to https://github.com/google/material-design-icons/blob/master/README.md ~~~~~ We have made these icons available for you to incorporate into your products under the Apache License Version 2.0. Feel free to remix and re-share these icons and documentation in your products. We'd love attribution in your app's about screen, but it's not required. The only thing we ask is that you not re-sell these icons. ~~~~~ Given "We'd love attribution [...], but it's not required." the next sentence "The only thing [...]" seems to be a real requirement (practically being a part of the license). But a clarification from upstream would indeed be helpful. Both the language ("ask") and the split over separate files is at least confusing. > Alternatively, there is an active fork [2], which contains Google’s font > files with fixes for missing icons etc., but no icon files or images. > Thefork is licensed with Apache 2.0 as well, but with no extra clauses. > > Is it more sensible (and feasible) to package the fork instead of the > official package? For license reasons: no, a fork can't change the license without upstream's consent. But looking at the fork's README.md I see the same paragraph there anyway. For content reasons it might be a good idea. Greets jre
