5 ms·
You have licensed this under the CC-BY 3.0 license (which requires attribution 'in the manner specified by the author'), but I can't see anywhere that you've sp
by cobychapple 15y ago
You have licensed this under the CC-BY 3.0 license (which requires attribution 'in the manner specified by the author'), but I can't see anywhere that you've specified how it needs to be attributed if used.
Is this something you can elaborate on?
- fortawesome 15y agoGood catch. I'll clarify in the docs, but a link back to the project somewhere accessible and on the same domain will suffice. I'm also happy to make exceptions on a case by case basis, also in accordance with the CC BY 3.0.
- ars 15y agoIs a comment in the stylesheet where the font is defined OK? That's what I usually do when the license requires attribution.
- phillmv 15y agoI feel like that would follow the intent behind a BSD license, but not that of a CC-BY. Actually, what's the advantage of using a commercial, attribution license over a BSD?
- justincormack 15y agoNone. Advertising clauses were removed from pretty much all BSD licenses as they are unworkable.
- cobychapple 15y agoYeah that's not normally sufficient for many of the CC licenses (not that I'm an expert), as they often require it to be shown on a visible (i.e. browsable) page, such as a 'credits' page or similar.
- fortawesome 15y agoYes, that's just fine. License updated accordingly.
- patja 15y agoIt would be very nice to offer an option to buy away the need for attribution without needing to do so as a one-off request. Glyphicons offers a no brainer price point of $25 to make attribution go away.
- fortawesome 15y agoPlanned and in the works. The paid version will also include all vector icon files as well as a desktop TTF of the font itself.
- cwsaylor 15y agoFor an iPhone app, would a link in the app in an about page work?
- fortawesome 15y agoAbsolutely.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- dangrossman 15y agoDarn. It's a shame that the icons are the only part of Bootstrap not under the same license. I was hoping this font would change that, but it's going to remain a no-go for commercial sites and apps where the company isn't going to create a "credits" page just to link back to CC-BY licensed stuff. They'll just license Glyphicons instead. In fact, now I'm curious. You took the Glyphicons set and effectively copied it, yes? I don't see a link to Glyphicons on your site, which their license requires. Aren't you therefore infringing their copyright by creating a derivative work without license?
- fortawesome 15y agoI'm re-considering the license for the font itself. I agree, attribution on a commercial site would not be ideal. Attribution in code, however, seems reasonable. I used the classes from the Glyphicons set for backwards compatibility, but every icon was designed from scratch. If you look closely, you'll notice many of them are quite different.
- wiradikusuma 15y agoHow about putting it in humans.txt?
- mjking 15y agoGreat work! +1 for attribution in the code on commercial sites.
- justincormack 15y agoAttribution in code is unworkable if you minify code as it will no longer be there. Coders who are looking that hard will be able to work out where the awsomeness came from. Embrace a sane open source license please, something that would eg allow distribution with Debian.
- mdda 15y agoMinifiers almost always have an option to preserve specially marked comments for precisely this reason (to preserve the license information).