www.entypo.com uncler about font license

[cben]

The site is somewhat confusing whether the font is under CC BY-SA or SIL OFL:

• Top of www.entypo.com says "Pictogram Suite ... contains OpenType ... All released ... CC BY-SA 3.0". No mention of OFL.
• In the downloaded Entypo.zip I don't see any text file describing the copyright/license.
  • Running ttfdump on all .ttfs inside the zip I see ".C.r.e.a.t.i.v.e. .C.o.m.m.o.n.s. .C.C. .B.Y.-.S.A. .2.0.1.2" in the name table.
• Bottom of site makes the disctinction between pictograms and font.
  • "'Entypo pictograms by Daniel Bruce — www.entypo.com' is considered acceptable attribution." — is attribution required only for BY-SA, or also for OFL? Also, should the attribution be a visible text/link or hidden in source is OK as suggested on Fontsquirrel forum? These are really generic questions that betray my ignorance of font licensing, but it may be useful to clarify if the requirements for pictograms vs font differ...

P.S. actually I'm trying to figure out the license for Entypo obtained via Fontello. Fontello, IcoMoon and Font Squirell all list Entypo's license as BY-SA, no mention of CC-BY. To make things a bit more confusing, this repo's config.yml says OFL but https://github.com/fontello/entypo fork has CC BY-SA. README makes the pictograms/font distinction in both.

[g00glen00b]

Noticing this now, but i'm assuming (I'm not related to the project) the following:

• The icons (entypo.com) are licensed as CC BY-SA, as mentioned on the official website.

Both this project and the Fontello project and this project try to create a CSS + font based on the original icons. So, while the icons are indeed licensed using CC BY-SA, the fonts are not subjected to the same license.

Both this project and the project of Fontello added an additional license for the font only (and possibly the generated CSS files though I'm not sure about that). The license they used is the SIL OFL license. If they didn't additionally license the font, then it would not be free to use, since it would have no license (it's not included within the original CC BY-SA license), so they chose the SIL OFL license.

But remember that, even though entypo.com and this Github project are owned by the same owner (Daniel Bruce) they're not directly linked. So licenses that apply on this repository do not have to be the same as the icons on the

Icon libraries like these could use 3 to 4 licenses, according to what you are looking for:

• A license for the icons: in this case a Creative Commons license
• A license for the derivative fonts: in this case an OpenFont License
• A license for the derivative CSS: in this case there is none, but if you look at font awesome for example, you'll see that they license their CSS/Less/Sass code under the MIT license
• Possibly you could also license the code used for generating the derivative fonts/CSS, though I haven't found an example project yet where they license such code.