Hi Jens, Apologies for the delayed reply.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 1:17 am, Jens Reyer wrote: > I guess you refer to > https://github.com/google/material-design-icons/blob/master/README.md [...] > <https://github.com/google/material-design-icons/blob/master/README.md> > ~~~~~ > 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. Unfortunately, upstream never provided a definite answer to anyone asking about the licence. > 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. Good to know. > > For content reasons it might be a good idea. Agreed. I’ll package the fork. Hugh > >
