3 ms·
I think we are arguing the same thing: It's the content owners decision, not Googles. Considering that most (all?) fonts on Google Fonts are open (most I check
by Argorak 12y ago
I think we are arguing the same thing: It's the content owners decision, not Googles.
Considering that most (all?) fonts on Google Fonts are open (most I checked use SIL or Apache as license), downloading is most likely allowed.
- delinka 12y agoPerhaps we are arguing the same thing ultimately, but it's important to understand the distinction Google is attempting to make. They're basically trying to cover themselves by asserting that they are not granting any additional freedom beyond what the designer intended. Relicensing without permission is copyright infringement-- Google doesn't want the headache. Their safest course is to specify that unless you've been given license to do certain things by the content owner, that Google themselves is not licensing you to do those things. Think of it like an affirmation from an open source project licensed under an MIT or BSD license. Although they might include GPL code from elsewhere, they'll generally state that they're not relicensing someone else's GPL code under the less restrictive license.
- Argorak 12y agoYes, we are. Thanks for the writeup. Probably the biggest issue for the service will be to make sure that licensing is ensured. (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8802833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8802833)