| 1 |
Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:25:42 +0400 |
| 3 |
> Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Hello. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> There are droid fonts package in the tree. Author states that they are |
| 8 |
>> apache licensed [1] (supposedly similar to google's android sdk) but |
| 9 |
>> license itself is not included in the package (only .ttf files are |
| 10 |
>> there). Should we RESTRICT="mirror" in such case or it's safe to drop |
| 11 |
>> such restriction? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> [1] |
| 14 |
>> http://damieng.com/blog/2007/11/14/droid-sans-mono-great-coding-font |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Thank you for any hints, |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> RESTRICT=mirror is probably the safest bet. Both Apache licenses |
| 19 |
> require a copy to be included when redistributing, source or binary. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> PS. Badger him into switching to OFL while you're at it. ;) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
It's not up to him. The droid fonts are taken from Google's Android SDK, |
| 25 |
which, as I understand it, is (or is going to be) licensed under the |
| 26 |
APL2. As long as this situation is unclear, and/or the fonts are |
| 27 |
redistributed without the proper license included, we should keep the |
| 28 |
mirror restriction. |
Archives