Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Mention that all SVG files are under the SIL OFL license #62

Closed
janhohner opened this issue Mar 30, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Mention that all SVG files are under the SIL OFL license #62

janhohner opened this issue Mar 30, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels
documentation enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@janhohner
Copy link

Hi,
I prefer to use the SVG versions of the icons supplied in /src/icons/svg. I'm just not sure which license applies to them. The website footer states "Code is licensed under MIT License" but the README states that only "Fork Awesome CSS, LESS, and Sass files are licensed under the MIT License". Could you please clarify this? Thanks!

@xuv
Copy link
Member

xuv commented Apr 3, 2018

Hello

Sorry for the late reply and thank you for your message and question. It's actually a good question and I'm not 100% sure on the answer.

As you maybe know, Fork Awesome is a fork of Font Awesome 4.7. And Font Awesome 4.7 is distributed with 3 licenses that we have kept intact:

Fork Awesome is licensed under SIL OFL 1.1 · Code is licensed under MIT License · Documentation is licensed under CC BY 3.0

The thing we did is extract the SVG icons from the font into individual files. So since the font was released under a SIL OFL 1.1 license, I'm guessing the resulting SVG icons must be kept under that license. (MIT is for the code only)

Now, point 5 of the SIL license says this:

5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole,
must be distributed entirely under this license, and must not be
distributed under any other license. The requirement for fonts to
remain under this license does not apply to any document created
using the Font Software.

The question is: are the individual SVG icons considered a part of the original in font, and if such, they should be kept under the SIL OFL 1.1 license. Or are they considered documents created using the font software and thus could be licensed in any way we like. I tend to lean on the former, keeping the SIL license. But if you prefer the latter, consider the designs then under the documentation license, CC BY 3.0.

@janhohner
Copy link
Author

Thanks, I want to integrate the SVGs directly into a website instead of using the font, so SIL OFL 1.1 should be the best one for me anyway! 👍

@davelab6
Copy link

davelab6 commented Apr 7, 2018

I would likely redistribute glyphs as ofl, yes

@xuv
Copy link
Member

xuv commented Apr 8, 2018

@davelab6 Thx for the input. I'll add this to the documentation to clarify.

@xuv xuv reopened this Apr 8, 2018
@xuv xuv changed the title SVG license Mention that all SVG files are under the SIL OFL license Apr 8, 2018
@tessus tessus added enhancement New feature or request documentation labels Apr 18, 2018
@xuv xuv closed this as completed in acc5a7b Sep 20, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants