[theme-reviewers] Fonts and Licensing

[chip at chipbennett.net]

> I've been looking through this, reading license text is not my idea of
> a good time :-)
>

On that point, we agree! :)  But, best to have asked the question and
worked out the answer, before we run into someone submitting a theme that
bundles a font with one of these licenses, eh? At least with a
prior-discussed list, published on the Codex, we have a pretty good
starting point.

>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:38 AM,  <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>
>> To that end, could I get your/Matt's thoughts on the following font
>> licenses, that have the same terms as the SIL Open Font license, above
>> (and, as with SIL, are considered by FSF to be "free" fonts)?
>>
>> Â - Arphic
>
> I think this looks alright.
>
>
>> Â - Android (Apache 2.0)
>
> Apache 2.0 license is GPLv3 compatible (according to
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses )
> so lets call that one ok.
>
>
>> Â - Bitstream
>
> Sounds ok.
>
>> Â - GUST e-Foundry/LPPL (LaTeX)
>> Â - Liberation
>> Â - ParaType Free Font License
>
> I think this are likely ok as well.
>
>> See:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Approved_font_licenses
>>
>> I assume that, if SIL Open Font is acceptable, then so would any other
>> similar license be acceptable. But, it would be better to get some
>> official word before I update the Codex.
>
>
> Go ahead and add them to the codex (with the link to the
> fedoraproject.org as reference).  If we need to we can re-visit
> individual items as well.
>

Aye, aye! I'll get going on putting something together.

Now, can someone remind me *what* Codex page I'm updating with this
information? :)

> I don't really want to get into the licensing arbitration business,
> I'd rather leave that to folks like the FSF.

I was hoping you'd say that. Would be much easier to let another entity
(e.g. the Fedora project) be the arbiter, and us merely point to their
conclusions.

> To that end I'd like to
> keep things fairly simple, i.e. pick one of the accepted licenses to
> be eligible for consideration for the theme directory.
>

That's *exactly* what I'm going for: publish a list of known-acceptable
licenses, and we'll cover 99% of the use cases. If someone has a question
about a different license, we can opt to consider it (or not).

And, final question: can we get Matt to weigh in on this? He and I have
been at odds in the past regarding licensing questions, but I'm *really*
trying to work within the system here. (Or, if he's delegated it entirely
to you, I'll just run with it!)

Chip