Richard Stallman <r...@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
