Multiple copyright and licence issues

[mirabilos]

The License.md file contains a complete(-looking) copy of the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence, but no actual licence grant.

The CSS files contain the remark Font: SIL OFL 1.1, CSS: MIT License, but neither are the terms and conditions of those licences reproduced anywhere, nor is there any hint of an explicit copyright notice and licence grant whatsoever anywhere in the repository. The SVG files which serve as source code especially do not contain any such notices.

Both the MIT and the OFL require the user to reproduce the terms and conditions, but this cannot be done if they are not there in the first place. (They at least belong (MIT) in the non-minified CSS and (fonts) in a separate file in the dist/fonts/ subdirectory.)

The purpose of the License.md file is questionable at best. I do not know what to do with it. Should I just ignore it? Or assume the rest of the repository is covered by it? (Which would be illegal as it is incompatible with the OFL.)

[Natureshadow]

The licences of the project are laid out in detail here, as linked in the README: http://zavoloklom.github.io/material-design-iconic-font/license.html

[mirabilos]

Dominik George dixit:

The licences of the project are laid out in detail here, as linked in the README: http://zavoloklom.github.io/material-design-iconic-font/license.html

Oh, interesting. Hmm, if any of the files from material-design-iconic-font/svg/google/ are embedded into the font (material-design-iconic-font/fonts/) the resulting font is illegal.

[mirabilos]

Dominik George dixit:

The licences of the project are laid out in detail here, as linked in the README:

Hm, this is still problematic for multiple reasons, actual content of the file aside (which I commented on separately). The licence grant needs to be included in the origtgz; furthermore, both the SIL OFL and the MIT licence require their terms to be given to the user alongside the covered material, and since they are not included as part of the repository, we’d need to repackage it in Debian including these files, which is a no-go (DevRef is clear that even a repackaged origtgz is to not include any files not part of what upstream shipps). A minor issue, but the copyright holders for the individual parts are also not listed explicitly.

[mirabilos]

ok, uniF101 is clearly derived from a CC-BY-SA (according to your own licence link) file, which makes this font plain illegal.

Later versions of Google’s icons are Apache 2 licenced, but I’m pretty sure this still doesn’t mean you can just publish them in a font published solely under the SIL OFL 1.1, no matter how well-intended that is.

@jestelle @shyndman you might wish to know about this.