3 ms·

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-ex

• 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 If they can withdraw the license then that clause is also withdrawn.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.