Appropriately document bundled assets

[stefan6419846]

Feature Request

Fomantic-UI apparently ships with some third-party assets, which do not seem to be documented appropriately.

Let's say I have https://github.com/fomantic/Fomantic-UI/blob/develop/dist/themes/default/assets/fonts/icons.woff Looking from the outside, it seems like they have been generated by https://github.com/fomantic/create-fomantic-icons using some FontAwesome fonts. In the same assets directory, the Lato fonts (https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Lato/about) seem to be shipped. For both cases, the original font license is OFL-1.1 which imposes some attribution requirements. Unless I missed something, neither the required license terms, attribution or upstream links are provided for the assets.

This should probably be changed to ensure license compliance and to make it clear from the outside where the assets actually originate from.

[lubber-de]

TLDR; Please provide ideas / PRs where to improve the asset documentation as i think, license-wise, we already did what is necessary.

Lato 2.0 was bundled by #2359 from https://www.latofonts.com/lato-free-fonts/ (not google, which only provide lato 1.0)

According to https://openfontlicense.org/ and https://openfontlicense.org/how-to-use-ofl-fonts/ the OFL-1.1 does not need any separate attribution as we are bundling the font in an open source package

Fomantic UI bundles the whole unmodified fontawesome icon font files. The create-fomantic-icons script is used to create the related css classes and the docs page. The script does not create the woff files themselves. As stated at https://fontawesome.com/license/free#attribution the original files already contain the sufficient attribution

I quickly checked the bundled files via fontforge and yes, the attribution information is still inside those untouched files

Lato:

Fontawesome

On the docs page, it is basically mentioned where the origin of the font files is. I have to admit, at least for Lato 2.0, this could be improved

https://fomantic-ui.com/usage/theming.html#progressive-truthfulness The "Lato" Text links to the original font website

I think for FontAweseome it's all fine mentioned at https://fomantic-ui.com/elements/icon.html

So, if you got some ideas where to improve either Code or docs, feel free to tell us or provide a PR to help Fomantic UI getting better 🙂

[stefan6419846]

Thanks for the explanations. I have to admit that I did not read through the whole documentation outside of the GitHub repository as I usually prefer some centralized licensing explanations.

As some background: In the third-party project at https://github.com/django-cms/djangocms-frontend/pull/167, I stumbled upon the fact that the project license is MIT, but djangocms-frontend bundling only the font files which are subject to the OFL-1.1 instead (due to originating from FontAwesome and the file-based copyleft effect). This is not obvious from the root-level license file.

Please note that I am not a Javascript frontend developer, but rather coming from the Python landscape. I am aware that everyone considers different approaches, but I generally prefer to either have license files in all third-party directories or a secondary license file at the root level which documents all third-party components to simplify license reviews.

[lubber-de]

I added the license files where appropriate by #2959

[stefan6419846]

Thanks for the PR. I had a quick look at it and now I am able to at least get some hints regarding the third-party licenses.