4 ms·

This fonts are pretty cool. But I don't understand why they just used Roboto or Noto fonts.

• randomdata 10y ago
  Roboto appears to be licensed under Apache 2.0. Noto under SIL Open Font license. As these fonts are purportedly intended for testing purposes, presumably they will be included in the package. Adding additional licenses to the codebase complicates the usage. You might agree to the terms of the Go license, but not the Apache license, for instance. Since this new font is licensed under the Go license, there is only one set of terms you need to agree to. This is a much better situation for many reasons.
  • modeless 10y ago
    Considering the openness of these licenses the concern is silly. The tiny disadvantage of having an extra open license is heavily outweighed by the much higher quality and unbeatable coverage of the Noto fonts. Also, considering that Google owns Noto and has relicensed it in the recent past, it would probably be possible for them to ship it under the Go license too.
    • EdiX 10y ago
      Unfortunately if you use Noto fonts with Go Rob Pike and Nigel Tao will hunt you down, show up to your house and kill you and your entire family, so you have to factor that in to your choice.
  • __david__ 10y ago
    > Adding additional licenses to the codebase complicates the usage. Not really if the additional licensed parts are tests. Most things don't ship their dependencies' tests in the final binary.