On 6/17/14 2:34 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> The Google copyright is in the TTF file. Is that sufficient for you to >> accept that these are Google fonts? >No it is not acceptable. Looking inside a binary file to find out the >copyright is not exactly obvious or convenient. Wow! So you still believe these TTF files could be from Adobe? > >> Add that to what file according to what quote from the LICENSE and >>NOTICE >> document? >The LICENSE file obviously, there are probably other options, but that >seems to me the most obvious and straightforward way to fix this issue. But the NOTICE and LICENSE how to seems to say we shouldn't. First there is this passage: "The Simple Case -- No Bundled DependenciesFor a source tree which consists entirely of code licensed to the ASF by the copyright holders and which has no bundled dependencies, LICENSE should contain the text of the ALv2 <http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt> -- no more, no less." Then: "Bundling an Apache-2.0-licensed DependencyAssuming once again that that the dependency subtree contains no bundled subcomponents under other licenses and thus the ALv2 applies uniformly to all files, there is no need to modify LICENSE." Can you show me a set of quotes from policy documents that backs up your recommendation to add to LICENSE? > >> I think this isn't a Derivative Work. >Incorrect. Section 4 clearly states it refers to both types of works: >"4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work >or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, >and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following >conditions:" Yes, but section c seems to only be about derivative works since there is a chance you ou > >> Are you referring to their desire to not have a long list of copyrights >>in >> the headers of every file and/or to only claim copyright on the >>collective >> work? >Of course not. All I asking for is proper legal acknowledgement of Google >copyright. > >This is very easily fixed by adding a few line to the LICENSE. I just found this from http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html "Do images or other media require a copyright line in the NOTICE file?If the media was contributed directly to an ASF project, the contributor has the option to insert their copyright notice in the NOTICE file, as is described for source files <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright>. If the media comes from a third-party source (not contributed directly to the project), then any copyright notice that is obviously associated with the media should be copied into the NOTICE file." If we consider the font to be media, then one could argue that the NOTICE file should contain the copyright, even though the N & L how to doesn't explicitly describe this case. > >Until is resolved my -1 stands, that -1 is of course is not a veto. > >Justin
