License for Glyphicons is unclear

[justinshepard]

The license terms for Glyphicons when used with Bootstrap needs to be clarified. For example, including a link to Glyphicons on every page in a prominent location isn't possible or appropriate for some projects. Purchasing the set for each project is certainly not out of the question, however I would like to see the license terms explicitly stated prior to having to add a line item for icon purchase to invoices.

According to the Glyphicons license page , Halflings isn't included in the Glyphicons FREE set but it's suggested on the Bootstrap site that a special agreement has been made between Twitter and Glyphicons to include Halflings with Bootstrap:

Glyphicons has granted us use of the Halflings set in our open-source toolkit so long as we provide a link and credit here in the docs. Please consider doing the same in your projects.

I am not a lawyer, but the phrase "has granted us use of the Halflings set" suggests to me (and my colleagues) that only the Bootstrap project has been granted a special license and that users of the toolkit would be subject to Glyphicons' normal license. Someone recently proposed a question of the Halflings set's license to Glyphicons on Twitter and the response was ambiguous but seemed to suggest that any attribution was acceptable when using Glyphicons with the Bootstrap toolkit:

If it's not possible to include a link back to glyphicons.com, it would be right to have any license, but it's up to you.

Please update the Bootstrap website and/or the LICENSE file distributed with the source to expicitly state the license terms for the Glyphicons Halflings set when used with Bootstrap, whatever those terms may be. This will help those of us striving for compliance to determine whether to use Glyphicons or an alternative icon set with less intrusive license terms (such as FontAwesome).

[mdo]

Clarified license a bit more in the 2.1.0-wip docs. It's optional that you include attribution on your project in some form or fashion. I personally would like you to since that's just good manners and all, but it's up to you and the project.

[justinshepard]

Thanks for clarifying the terms.

I'd like to note that my intent with this request was not to deny attribution to Jan (or anyone else who has contributed to this wonderful toolkit, for that matter). It's just that certain clients (read: their legal teams) want clear, definitive license terms for the open-source and CC content that gets incorporated into their projects. The attribution and linkback will certainly be included in as many projects as I can get away with :)

[Rarst]

I'd like to second this request. While update

Halflings are normally not available for free, but an arrangement between Bootstrap and the Glyphicons creators have made this possible at not cost to you as developers. As a thank you, we ask you to include an optional link back to Glyphicons whenever practical.

says what you can do with icons included in Bootstrap, it in no way clarifies which specific license they are under.

I've been told:

GlyphIcon halfling icons are under Bootstrap's Apache 2.0 license, verified by the GlyphIcon owner. ( https://twitter.com/chip_bennett/status/219183894635876352 )

However there is absolutely nothing about this in docs.

Please document explicitly which license subset of Glyphicons, included in Bootstrap, is under including if and how it differs from mainline Glyphicons distribution.

TIA

PS for the context WordPress world has a long history of madness and chaos on topic of licensing, so it helps WP devs to be really really sure about things like this.

[chipbennett]

I second Rarst's request. The license issue is especially important to the WordPress Theme Review Team, in determining the appropriateness of allowing Bootstrap-derived Themes in the official Theme repository. We have thus far allowed such Themes, under the above statement, indicating that the iconset bundled with Bootstrap is under Bootstrap's Apache 2.0 license, but this term is, explicitly speaking, not GPL-compatible:

As a thank you, we ask you to include an optional link back to Glyphicons whenever practical.

An explicit license clarification would lay the issue to rest, and would benefit the many current and future WordPress Themes derived from Bootstrap.

[emiluzelac]

From official WordPress Theme Review Team view this is not enough. WPORG requires GPL-Compatibility and as you already know that no CC license is compatible with any version of GPL. Take ZURB Foundation for example, just like you they build a fantastic framework and didn't choose to include anything that will prevent users from distributing their work freely and/or with any kind of restrictions or license limitations.

Thanks!

[justinshepard]

Honestly, I don't think it's viable to re-license Halflings under Apache because it will discourage generous content creators like Jan from donating their work to projects like this. The Creative Commons Attribution license needs to remain for Glyphicons because (1) it's the license the creator released under, (2) it's not unreasonable to ask for attribution to recognize the work put into creating these icons, and (3) re-releasing under a GPL compatible license kills any copyright claim Jan has to his work, which was certainly not his intent when re-licensing Halflings to the Bootstrap project.

I think the best the WPTRT could hope for in this regard is to fork this project and create a distribution of Bootstrap that doesn't include the CC-licensed bits. Since all of Bootstrap is APL except for the icons, this is a perfectly valid approach that doesn't intrude on Jan's rights or require a change to the Glyphicons license.

[Rarst]

@justinshepard what we ask for above is clarity about licensing, not to change that licensing (since supposedly icon subset is under Apache License already).

(1) it's the license the creator released under

The subset of icons in Bootstrap has clearly different terms from main Glyphicons. It's entirely not clear if it is released under CC as main set or under Apache as Bootstrap.

(2) it's not unreasonable to ask for attribution to recognize the work put into creating these icons

No one remotely asks for that here. Standing freeform attribution clauses just confuse the situation of actual license to go by.

(3) re-releasing under a GPL compatible license kills any copyright claim Jan has to his work

GPL or GPL-compatibility no more harms copyright and rights of original author than any sane license out there.

Again - we are asking for explanation of situation, not for changing things.

[justinshepard]

@Rarst, Ah, okay. I read the "relicense Glyphicons under Apache" from @emiluzelac and misunderstood the intent of your request as a result of that. I felt compelled to reply to that statement as I believe asking Jan to re-license his work is the absolute wrong approach (to clarify: it seems unappreciative, to me, to tell a content creator "thanks, but can you give us a less-restrictive license for the work you donated?" I understand now that that's not what you're asking for.)

In light your reply, I do agree with asking for clarification on the specific license for Halflings. The solution already implemented in 2.1.0-wip works for my purposes, but I can see where having an explicitly-defined license for the icons would be more useful.

My suggestion about forking and re-distributing Bootstrap without the CC-licensed components still stands as well; that is, offering a "WordPress-Compatible" version of Bootstrap for theme authors who could then include their own icons (or simply not use the icon feature).

[Rarst]

Ah, okay. I read the "relicense Glyphicons under Apache" from @emiluzelac and misunderstood the intent of your request as a result of that.

Yes, he went a little overboard there :) According to prior communications @chipbennett had icons in Bootstrap already are under Apache so there is no actual need to change anything anyway... However docs don't have clear explicit license for icons and it is the issue worth correcting in any case.

[chipbennett]

Honestly, I don't think it's viable to re-license Halflings under Apache...

We're not asking for re-licensing, but rather an explicit statement of the current license.

...because it will discourage generous content creators like Jan from donating their work to projects like this. The Creative Commons Attribution license needs to remain for Glyphicons...

This statement concerns me for multiple reasons:

1. The CC-By license is not compatible with Apache 2.0, causing the distribution of a combined Apache 2.0/CC-By work to be a violation of the Apache 2.0 license. This impacts both you and any downstream distributors of Bootstrap.
2. The CC-By license is not compatible with GPL, causing a combined Apache 2.0/CC-By work to be unacceptable for inclusion in the WordPress Theme repository.

...because (1) it's the license the creator released under, (2) it's not unreasonable to ask for attribution to recognize the work put into creating these icons, and (3) re-releasing under a GPL compatible license kills any copyright claim Jan has to his work...

This statement belies a gross misunderstanding of both GPL and copyright.

First, copyleft licenses - including both GPL and Apache 2.0 - derive their legal enforceability from Copyright Law. The owner of a given work holds the copyright for that work, and it is through that copyright ownership that the owner may license the work under the terms of GPL, Apache 2.0, or any other copyleft license. Thus, licensing a work under a copyleft license does not deprive the owner of the work any of the exclusive rights to that work under Copyright Law.

Second, both GPL and Apache 2.0 require proper copyright attribution. That requirement is explicit in both licenses. What neither license requires, however, is a non-applicable attribution, such as an arbitrary, public-facing "credit" link. (For that matter, neither does CC-By compel an arbitrary, public-facing "credit" link. That clause only requires a link, appropriate to the medium of the work, to the license information for that work. Thus, proper, rightful attribution is maintained by both GPL and Apache 2.0.

Third, as the copyright owner, the GlyphIcons creator may license or _re_license his work, however he sees fit. It is perfectly acceptable to license his work as a whole under CC-By, and to _re_license a subset of that work (or, for that matter, the whole work) to Bootstrap under Apache 2.0.

(Note: we're not asking for this to be done; rather, we're simply asking that the exact license under which the Halfling GlyphIcons are licensed to Bootstrap - whatever those license terms may be - be declared explicitly in the Bootstrap package.)

which was certainly not his intent when re-licensing Halflings to the Bootstrap project.

This is what we're asking: what are the license terms under which the Halflings were relicensed to Bootstrap? You claim that the Halflings were "re-licens[ed] to the Bootstrap project"; what are those re-licensing terms?

I think the best the WPTRT could hope for in this regard is to fork this project and create a distribution of Bootstrap that doesn't include the CC-licensed bits.

The WPTRT doesn't create works ourselves; though most of its members are Theme developers who create and distribute their own works, our purpose as the WPTRT is to review and approve Themes to be included in the WordPress Theme Repository. Thus, it is our purpose to determine whether a Theme is licensed compatibly with WordPress project policy that all Themes be licensed under a GPL-compatible license.

Since all of Bootstrap is APL except for the icons, this is a perfectly valid approach that doesn't intrude on Jan's rights or require a change to the Glyphicons license.

Based on this statement, Bootstrap as a whole is not GPL-compatible, and therefore Bootstrap-derived Themes are not eligible for inclusion in the Theme Repository. That may not impact you or the Bootstrap, but it will impact thousands of potential developers and users of the Bootstrap package.

[justinshepard]

@chipbennett Thank you for correcting me on those points. I'm honestly not sure what I was thinking stating that GPL compatibility kills copyright claims, that'll teach me to post comments before getting my morning cup of joe.

I was not aware that CC-BY was both GPL- and Apache 2.0-incompatible, so thanks for pointing that out. Also, my understanding of CC-BY was that attribution was required to be "in the manner specified by the author or licensor", and Jan explicitly states that "you must always add a link to glyphicons.com in a prominent place (e.g. the footer of a website), include the CC-BY license and the reference to glyphicons.com on every page using Glyphicons" as his requirement for attribution in the main Glyphicons license.

Further, I understand it is possible for the creator of a work to license any or all of his work in whatever combination of ways he desires. My hangup was only on the request to "relicense Glyphicons under Apache" -- it seems (to me) to be improper to ask a content creator to re-license or sub-license his work in a way that undermines his requirements for usage or distribution. Now that that statement has been redacted, and the intent clearly explained by both yourself and @Rarst, I see (and agree with) your position.

This is what we're asking: what are the license terms under which the Halflings were relicensed to Bootstrap? You claim that the Halflings were "re-licens[ed] to the Bootstrap project"; what are those re-licensing terms?

I should clarify this: my statement that Halflings was re-licensed to Bootstrap was based on the @markdotto's clarification of the terms in the documentation; It is apparent that "It's optional that you include attribution on your project in some form or fashion" differs greatly from the official Glyphicons license terms. Obviously, Halflings was donated to the Bootstrap project under a different license than Glyphicons by itself is licensed under. The sticking point that I think we all can agree on is that the "different license" is not thoroughly and explicitly stated, anywhere.

Thanks again to you for pointing out some nuances of these licenses that I wasn't aware of. Also, thanks to everyone for your input on this issue. Now I think we are all on the same page.

[chipbennett]

Also, my understanding of CC-BY was that attribution was required to be "in the manner specified by the author or licensor", and Jan explicitly states that "you must always add a link to glyphicons.com in a prominent place (e.g. the footer of a website), include the CC-BY license and the reference to glyphicons.com on every page using Glyphicons" as his requirement for attribution in the main Glyphicons license.

That is a common misunderstanding of the CC Attribution clause. To understand it properly, you must look at the full-text version of the license, rather than the license summary. In the full-text license, you will find the following:

If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Section 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4 (b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors.

Let's parse that a bit:

You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work

The key bits:

1. reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing
2. the name of the Original Author...if supplied...for attribution...in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means
3. the title of the Work if supplied
4. to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work

"Reasonable to the medium" does not in any way compel a public-facing link. It is well established that the reasonable means of copyright attribution for this type of work is in the documentation (inline docs, readme file, etc.). Further, even if a public-facing link is reasonable, it must be a link to the copyright/licensing information for the original work. An arbitrary "credit" link does not meet this requirement, and is in fact explicitly excluded, per the wording, "unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work".

(There are other, related requirements that I have abridged, as they are not necessarily germane to the attribution/credit link question.)

Thus, it is easy to see that the following requirement does not conform to the CC-By license attribution clause:

"you must always add a link to glyphicons.com in a prominent place (e.g. the footer of a website), include the CC-BY license and the reference to glyphicons.com on every page using Glyphicons"

[emiluzelac]

@justinshepard not to relicense the icons, that came out bad, sorry :) Docs are what we're after here, not relicensing the icons ;)

[markjaquith]

1. The license granted to the Bootstrap project for the Glyphicons "halflings" set is unclear.
2. Bootstrap claims to be licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, but has not done due diligence on verifying that its component parts are available to be thusly licensed.

Only Jan can clear up the first issue. Once he has, Bootstrap can change its license declaration, if needed, to exclude Bootstrap from the Apache 2.0 license or (better) to specify its specific license.

[jankovarik]

Guys, I was one week offline (on vacation), so sorry for late response - I've just arrived home and I'm reading this loooong topic :) I'll look on this "license issue" more tomorrow and I'll get back to you here, promise ;)

[jankovarik]

I'm not a lawyer and what's worse, I'm not a native English speaker. This is why I'm not sure what would be the best to add in to the license text. My intent was to give all Halflings for Bootstrap users for free and all I wanted was to keep me as an author of the icons with a simple link back to glyphicons.com if it's possible.

What about to add simple definition like this (I'd add this in to the FREE license):

"Glyphicons Halflings are also a part of the Bootstrap from Twitter and they are released under the same license as a Bootstrap. It's optional that you include attribution on your project, but I'd appreciate visible link back to glyphicons.com in any place you find appropriate (footer, docs, etc.)."

Will this work for you? Is it grammatically correct? Any better ideas? :)

And one more important thing: I do not see any license conflict, since Halflings are not a part of the FREE version. They are a part of the PRO version and Bootstrap only.

[markjaquith]

@jankovarik —

Thanks for responding! Proposed, with edits for clarity and English readability:

Glyphicons Halflings are also a part of Bootstrap by Twitter, and are released under the same Apache 2.0 license as Bootstrap. While you are not required to include attribution on your Bootstrap-based projects, I'd certainly appreciate a visibile link back to glyphicons.com in any place you find appropriate (footer, docs, etc).

That would do a few things:

• Clarify the license of the icons in Bootstrap
• Make Bootstrap Apache 2.0 in its entirety
• Allow Bootstrap-based WordPress themes that use Glyphicons Halflings to be hosted in the WordPress theme repository

That would be fantastic news, and if that came to be, I'd gladly use the @WordPress Twitter account to tweet out that development, and give you a bunch of exposure . :-)

[jankovarik]

@markjaquith //cc @markdotto

It's done, thank you for proofreading, now it's a part of a FREE license: http://glyphicons.com/glyphicons-licenses/ :)

[chipbennett]

It's done, thank you for proofreading, now it's a part of a FREE license: http://glyphicons.com/glyphicons-licenses/ :)

That is perfect! Thank you, @jankovarik. :)

[davemecha]

This issue should be reopened for MS3.0.

The Glyphicons should be used as a font with font-face from now on, what is only available in the pro version, as I understand the website (http://glyphicons.com/glyphicons-licenses/). The Glyphicons font used in Bootstrap should use the MIT-License too.

[jankovarik]

Hi,

this is why I've add a new license text to the FREE version that cover all Halflings (font or images):

"
Glyphicons Halflings are also a part of Bootstrap by Twitter, and are released under the same Apache 2.0 license as Bootstrap. While you are not required to include attribution on your Bootstrap-based projects, I’d certainly appreciate a visibile link back to glyphicons.com in any place you find appropriate (footer, docs, etc).
"
source: http://glyphicons.com/glyphicons-licenses/

[jankovarik]

Update: also, I've removed: "Apache 2.0" so from now on, I don't have to follow the exact license name ;)

[emiluzelac]

thanks!

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM, jankovarik notifications@github.51.alwrote:

Update: also, I've removed: "Apache 2.0" so from now on, I don't have to
follow the exact license name ;)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/3942#issuecomment-12559146.

[jankovarik]

@RobertRogers24 It's because they are no longer available, the only place where you can download them is older version of Bootstrap, here: https://getbootstrap.com/docs/3.4/components/#glyphicons

Since it looks like some folks (like you) are still using them, I've put a copy of older license for previous version here: https://glyphicons.com/old/license.html#old-halflings-bootstrap

[RobertRogers24]

Appreciate you doing this. This is great and I appreciate your assistance with republishing the license.

[patrickhlauke]

top stuff @jankovarik

[schmunk42]

Which version of glyphicons is Bootstrap 3 using?