4 ms·

This is wonderful. LICENSE = Apache 2.0 https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE And

by buro9 13y ago

This is wonderful. LICENSE = Apache 2.0 https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE And then... https://github.com/guardian/frontend/tree/master/resources/fonts https://github.com/guardian/frontend/tree/master/resources/f... They have put under Apache license their commissioned fonts which are normally available for a decent fee: https://commercialtype.com/typefaces/guardian https://commercialtype.com/typefaces/guardian https://commercialtype.com/typeface_images/guardian/Guardian-collection.pdf https://commercialtype.com/typeface_images/guardian/Guardian... This is extremely generous of the Guardian.

eterm 13y ago
If this turns out to be erroneous, does anyone know what happens here? I assume that if it is clear error then the licensing won't be valid and they can revoke it?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dublinben 13y ago
  According to the Apache 2.0 license: >Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
  - eterm 13y ago
    That's a circular argument, you can't appeal to clauses in that license to determine if that license is valid. If they can withdraw the license then that clause is also withdrawn. I don't know about copyright law but in contract law just because something is written in a contract doesn't make it automatically applicable. An analogous situation may apply here where this can be considered a misapplication and so the license does not apply. Either way I'd not use this licence to comply with "don't be a dick". Not being an ass here may encourage future releases, being an ass over this could lead to "this is why we can't have nice things.".
  - vidarh 13y ago
    It is worth pointing out that this is only relevant if 1) they have the rights to it in the first place, which is not a given, and 2) a judge finds that someone trying to take advantage of the error is in the right, which is certainly not a given depending on jurisdiction - a long list of considerations might affect whether you could safely depend on the original license. In this case it appears the copyright to the fonts is held by Commercial Type / Schartzco Inc., not The Guardian, and so they quite possibly don't have the authority to put them under the Apache license in the first place, making the license moot.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
kaelig 13y ago
Thanks a lot for pointing out the problem of having those fonts within the Apache license. We will find a solution soon. Next time you see something like this, we'd appreciate it greatly if you emailed us instead.
- buro9 13y ago
  Sure thing, and I did glance through the github repo for an obvious contact point and couldn't see one. I figured you'd be reading HN and this would be dealt with far quicker by just posting here. I haven't checked for other things but the same logic about protecting original licensed works should be borne in mind for any commissioned artwork, icon sets, widgets, third party items, fonts, etc. An open-source version should go into the project (safe defaults that work), and the closed-source/licensed things should just be merged during deploy. I only glanced for a few seconds, but custom icons and images are the other obvious areas of concern given it's your brand identity and you probably aren't open-sourcing that and have restrictions on how those assets are used.
  - kaelig 13y ago
    Sorry a contact point was not obvious. There is a link at the bottom of the mobile site (top of the desktop site) that says "Contact us". Or we appreciate Github issues as well.
    - patio11 13y ago
      Generic advice for all HNers: if you publish things to the Internet, a single responsible party (which can be a bunch of people, as long as they can share an email address) with a PGP key is a very cheap investment in not having your dirty laundry aired on Twitter/HN/Pastebin/less savory places. Specific advice to the Guardian: I'd encourage you to take the above generic advice.
      - kaelig 13y ago
        Wouldn't this defeat the point of having this project open-sourced?
randomsearch 13y ago
> This is extremely generous of the Guardian. Yes. An academic researcher I know has also received helpful cooperation from the Guardian on using some of their code for benchmarking. They're good people.
kaelig 13y ago
Thanks again for reporting this, we added a mention to our license: All fonts are the property of Schwartzco, Inc., t/a Commercial Type (https://commercialtype.com/ https://commercialtype.com/), and may not be reproduced without permission.

by buro9 13y ago

eterm 13y ago

If this turns out to be erroneous, does anyone know what happens here? I assume that if it is clear error then the licensing won't be valid and they can revoke it?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dublinben 13y ago
According to the Apache 2.0 license: >Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
- eterm 13y ago
  That's a circular argument, you can't appeal to clauses in that license to determine if that license is valid. If they can withdraw the license then that clause is also withdrawn. I don't know about copyright law but in contract law just because something is written in a contract doesn't make it automatically applicable. An analogous situation may apply here where this can be considered a misapplication and so the license does not apply. Either way I'd not use this licence to comply with "don't be a dick". Not being an ass here may encourage future releases, being an ass over this could lead to "this is why we can't have nice things.".
- vidarh 13y ago
  It is worth pointing out that this is only relevant if 1) they have the rights to it in the first place, which is not a given, and 2) a judge finds that someone trying to take advantage of the error is in the right, which is certainly not a given depending on jurisdiction - a long list of considerations might affect whether you could safely depend on the original license. In this case it appears the copyright to the fonts is held by Commercial Type / Schartzco Inc., not The Guardian, and so they quite possibly don't have the authority to put them under the Apache license in the first place, making the license moot.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

kaelig 13y ago

Thanks a lot for pointing out the problem of having those fonts within the Apache license. We will find a solution soon. Next time you see something like this, we'd appreciate it greatly if you emailed us instead.

buro9 13y ago
Sure thing, and I did glance through the github repo for an obvious contact point and couldn't see one. I figured you'd be reading HN and this would be dealt with far quicker by just posting here. I haven't checked for other things but the same logic about protecting original licensed works should be borne in mind for any commissioned artwork, icon sets, widgets, third party items, fonts, etc. An open-source version should go into the project (safe defaults that work), and the closed-source/licensed things should just be merged during deploy. I only glanced for a few seconds, but custom icons and images are the other obvious areas of concern given it's your brand identity and you probably aren't open-sourcing that and have restrictions on how those assets are used.
- kaelig 13y ago
  Sorry a contact point was not obvious. There is a link at the bottom of the mobile site (top of the desktop site) that says "Contact us". Or we appreciate Github issues as well.
  - patio11 13y ago
    Generic advice for all HNers: if you publish things to the Internet, a single responsible party (which can be a bunch of people, as long as they can share an email address) with a PGP key is a very cheap investment in not having your dirty laundry aired on Twitter/HN/Pastebin/less savory places. Specific advice to the Guardian: I'd encourage you to take the above generic advice.
    - kaelig 13y ago
      Wouldn't this defeat the point of having this project open-sourced?

randomsearch 13y ago

> This is extremely generous of the Guardian. Yes. An academic researcher I know has also received helpful cooperation from the Guardian on using some of their code for benchmarking. They're good people.

kaelig 13y ago

Thanks again for reporting this, we added a mention to our license: All fonts are the property of Schwartzco, Inc., t/a Commercial Type (https://commercialtype.com/ https://commercialtype.com/), and may not be reproduced without permission.