Ryan Hill wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:25:42 +0400 > Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> There are droid fonts package in the tree. Author states that they are >> apache licensed [1] (supposedly similar to google's android sdk) but >> license itself is not included in the package (only .ttf files are >> there). Should we RESTRICT="mirror" in such case or it's safe to drop >> such restriction? >> >> [1] >> http://damieng.com/blog/2007/11/14/droid-sans-mono-great-coding-font >> >> Thank you for any hints, > > RESTRICT=mirror is probably the safest bet. Both Apache licenses > require a copy to be included when redistributing, source or binary. > > PS. Badger him into switching to OFL while you're at it. ;) > > It's not up to him. The droid fonts are taken from Google's Android SDK, which, as I understand it, is (or is going to be) licensed under the APL2. As long as this situation is unclear, and/or the fonts are redistributed without the proper license included, we should keep the mirror restriction.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
