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: https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-code-pro/blob/4bbbf01dcf69752d527dbad061e2977b30d0bee2/LICENSE.md?plain=1#L56-L61

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: https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-serif/issues/107 https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-serif/issues/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 And BTW the included link http://scripts.sil.org/OFL is no longer valid, it redirects to https://openfontlicense.org/) or whether it is "easily viewed by the user" (took me some time to find otfinfo tool that displays both link and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.