search

rizwan3d / noto

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/noto
1 stars 0 forks source link

LICENSE Copyright blank？ #132

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1.Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] <- OK?
2.
3.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

Please provide any additional information below.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kobash...@gmail.com on 20 Aug 2014 at 2:44

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Please read the paragraph before that line, which explains that the line you 
are referencing is boilerplate, and thus the bracketed portions should be 
replaced with the appropriate information for the derived work:

APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work.

      To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following
      boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]"
      replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include
      the brackets!)  The text should be enclosed in the appropriate
      comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a
      file or class name and description of purpose be included on the
      same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier
      identification within third-party archives.

Original comment by ken.lu...@gmail.com on 20 Aug 2014 at 12:45

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I am sorry to be poor at English.
The copyright of the LICENSE file included in Noto-windows.zip is written to be 
[yyyy] [name of copyright owner]. 

https://www.google.com/get/noto/pkgs/Noto-windows.zip

Original comment by kobash...@gmail.com on 20 Aug 2014 at 1:07

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
As I explained above, that string in the "LICENSE" file is not an actual 
copyright notice, but rather an example or boilerplate copyright notice whose 
bracketed portions are expected to be replaced with the information for the 
derived work. In other words, this is intentional and not an issue.

The actual copyright notices are specified in the name.ID=0 strings of each 
font.

Original comment by ken.lu...@gmail.com on 20 Aug 2014 at 1:25

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by roozbeh@google.com on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:36