Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
License-audit is usually correct, but I re-did it and also list the source-repositories now in https://github.com/ryanoasis/nerd-fonts/blob/master/src/glyphs/README.md But in principle there are no changes to the licenses. So we have a lot MIT and CC BY, and Apache, and then the SIL is of course not really applicable if you just reuse the glyphs in a new font. The way we handle the licenses was/is to concentrate on the patched-font license. If you look at any other patched font you will only find the original font's license there. We do not add all the icons' licenses to the font file; but rather add a link back here, where people can find the icons' authors, licenses, and repositories.
Maybe we should add a line to that like this
But aside from that the icons' stuff is usually not mentioned in the/our release files, and also not in downstream re-packager's.
So that is the reason why SymbolsOnly is listed with MIT, because that is the license of the to-be-patched font, and the icons' licenses are not mentioned directly.
We just add the link to the list and do not include all the licenses in the license file, which can/should be changes probably.
Hmm, can not see that. Where do you see BSD? ![]() https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/ttf-nerd-fonts-symbols/ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello,
following up on the title, it is unclear to me what to do regarding the licensing:
What would be the proper move here?
P.S. I'm sorry if this was already discussed in the issues, I haven't been able to narrow down the query successfully and there were many irrelevant results.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions