DOC: Synchronize LICENSE_STIX files #27316
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for opening your first PR into Matplotlib!
If you have not heard from us in a week or so, please leave a new comment below and that should bring it to our attention. Most of our reviewers are volunteers and sometimes things fall through the cracks.
You can also join us on gitter for real-time discussion.
For details on testing, writing docs, and our review process, please see the developer guide
We strive to be a welcoming and open project. Please follow our Code of Conduct.
|
Per https://www.stixfonts.org/#licensing the license is currently SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. I agree with @stefan6419846 that as part of fda682e LICENSE/LICENSE_STIX should also have been updated. It looks like the initial import was a beta-version of the fonts and I am unable to find any historical record of what their license. The best I could find was https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00453.html . I would like a second review from one of @timhoffm @dopplershift or @efiring . |
…316-on-v3.8.x Backport PR #27316 on branch v3.8.x (DOC: Synchronize LICENSE_STIX files)
PR summary
The
LICENSE_STIXfiles have been out of sync and provided two different terms. This PR synchronizes them by using the more recent version of both.https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/blob/main/LICENSE/LICENSE_STIX has been created in 2007 and never modified, while https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/blob/main/lib/matplotlib/mpl-data/fonts/ttf/LICENSE_STIX has been updated in 2010 with new licensing terms: fda682e. This made it confusing which actually is the correct license text.
PR checklist