LICENSE inclusion clarification

[jpalus]

Note that this is a question for clarification. I'm not a lawyer in any form and licenses get me confused.

Quoting LICENSE.md:

source-code-pro/LICENSE.md

Lines 56 to 61 in 4bbbf01

	2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled,
	redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy
	contains the above copyright notice and this license. These can be
	included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or
	in the appropriate machine-readable metadata fields within text or
	binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user.

Doesn't that mean that official releases ie at https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-code-pro/releases/tag/2.042R-u%2F1.062R-i%2F1.026R-vf should distribute LICENSE.md within zip files as well?

[frankrolf]

These are related:
adobe-fonts/source-serif#107
adobe-fonts/source-serif#116

The license in question is the OFL license, a link to which is embedded into every single font file:
https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-code-pro/blob/main/familynameIDs.fea#L9

I think this might qualify as “appropriate machine-readable metadata field”.

[jpalus]

Thanks. I'm not sure if link alone qualifies as a license copy (what if it no longer works? And BTW the included link http://scripts.sil.org/OFL is no longer valid, it redirects to https://openfontlicense.org/) or whether it is "easily viewed by the user" (took me some time to find otfinfo tool that displays both link and an exact license version). But as long as Adobe's happy, I'm happy too :)

[pauldhunt]

Thanks for alerting us to this issue. I will update the link in the net release.