Based on the GitHub README, it seems the correct LICENSE should be "|| ( EPL-2.0 EPL-1.0 OFL-1.1 )"
Their website (https://b612-font.com/) only mentions the OFL font, none of the other. The GitHub repository also primarily displays the OFL-1.1 font as the project's licence, while indeed the README mentions the other licences in the last paragraph. So far I do not see a clear indication whether the additional licences apply or not.
The website you linked says "In 2017, Airbus agreed to publish the font with an open source license (Eclipse Public License) within the Polarsys project, an industry oriented project hosted by the Eclipse foundation." Following that link, I get to https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/polarsys.b612 which states "Licenses: Eclipse Public License 2.0 SIL Open Font License 1.1" and also links to the current GitHub repo. If you're still unsure, someone could open an issue on the GitHub repo for clarification...? (But I don't see why even the README alone leaves any doubt)
There is also docs/DESCRIPTION.en_us.html which says: "In 2017, Airbus agreed to publish the font with an open source license (Eclipse Public License) [...]" The TTF files say "This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1." I'd go with the information from README.md distributed with the tarball: "This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the terms of the Eclipse Public License v1.0 and Eclipse Distribution License v1.0 and the SIL Open Font License v1.1 which accompanies this distribution. The Eclipse Public License is available at [http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html](http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html) and the Eclipse Distribution License is available at [http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php](http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php). The SIL Open Font License v1.1 is available at [https://scripts.sil.org/OFL](https://scripts.sil.org/OFL)" That is: LICENSE="EPL-1.0 BSD OFL-1.1"
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #3) > That is: > LICENSE="EPL-1.0 BSD OFL-1.1" That LICENSE string would imply you need to comply with the terms of all 3 licenses, which clearly doesn't fit with the language...
(In reply to Luke-Jr from comment #4) > (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #3) > > That is: > > LICENSE="EPL-1.0 BSD OFL-1.1" > > > That LICENSE string would imply you need to comply with the terms of all 3 > licenses, which clearly doesn't fit with the language... The README file says "and", not "or".
Offering something under licenses A, B, and C in English, translates to Gentoo's || operator...
Opened https://github.com/polarsys/b612/issues/23
(In reply to Luke-Jr from comment #6) > Offering something under licenses A, B, and C in English, translates to > Gentoo's || operator... You're on thin ice there. :) We could use the || operator if the wording would say "triple-licensed under licenses A, B, or C", or "can be distributed under the terms of either license A, license B, or license C". (In reply to Luke-Jr from comment #7) > Opened https://github.com/polarsys/b612/issues/23 Thanks.
(In reply to Luke-Jr from comment #6) > Offering something under licenses A, B, and C in English, translates to > Gentoo's || operator... Indeed, as ulm observed, this would be with no operator. || means OR. Nothing implies an AND.
There is no response on the upstream bug. What should I do in regards to this?
(In reply to Jan Henke from comment #10) > There is no response on the upstream bug. What should I do in regards to > this? I'd suggest to change the line to something like the following, with a comment pointing to this bug: LICENSE="EPL-1.0 BSD OFL-1.1" # to be clarified #746725 Alternatively, put an || ( ) operator around them. It's not a big deal, since all three licenses have been approved as free by both FSF and OSI.
Thanks for the advice. I have opened a PR to change the current ebuilds accordingly.
So, I believe it is time for an official statement with my license team hat on: The ebuild should have: LICENSE="EPL-1.0 BSD OFL-1.1" # to be clarified #746725 We don't know for certain if upstream intended triple licensing, therefore we should lean on the safe side and require all of them. As all three licenses are in the @FREE group, this won't be an obstacle for users using the default configuration from profiles. If you disagree with this, then: - get a clarification from upstream, - get an opinion from a lawyer, - ask for another opinion of a license team member, or - appeal to Trustees.
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=e8005849cab59e16483dfb7cf65686842ccf7390 commit e8005849cab59e16483dfb7cf65686842ccf7390 Author: Jan Henke <Jan.Henke@taujhe.de> AuthorDate: 2021-02-23 20:26:41 +0000 Commit: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2021-02-24 12:33:13 +0000 media-fonts/polarsys-b612-fonts: Update license Upstream did not react yet. So add the other licenses too. While at it, bump to EAPI 7. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/746725 Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/19620 Package-Manager: Portage-3.0.13, Repoman-3.0.2 Signed-off-by: Jan Henke <Jan.Henke@taujhe.de> [Revision bump, empty IUSE dropped.] Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> ...b612-fonts-1.003.ebuild => polarsys-b612-fonts-1.003-r1.ebuild} | 7 +++---- ...b612-fonts-1.008.ebuild => polarsys-b612-fonts-1.008-r1.ebuild} | 7 +++---- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Let's leave this bug open until we get a reply on the upstream issue.
