Hacker News Reader

Comment by cobychapple | Hacker News Reader

You have licensed this under the CC-BY 3.0 license (which requires attribution 'in the manner specified by the author'), but I can't see anywhere that you've specified how it needs to be attributed if used.

Is this something you can elaborate on?

View on HN

Good catch. I'll clarify in the docs, but a link back to the project somewhere accessible and on the same domain will suffice. I'm also happy to make exceptions on a case by case basis, also in accordance with the CC BY 3.0.

Is a comment in the stylesheet where the font is defined OK? That's what I usually do when the license requires attribution.

I feel like that would follow the intent behind a BSD license, but not that of a CC-BY.

Actually, what's the advantage of using a commercial, attribution license over a BSD?

None. Advertising clauses were removed from pretty much all BSD licenses as they are unworkable.

Yeah that's not normally sufficient for many of the CC licenses (not that I'm an expert), as they often require it to be shown on a visible (i.e. browsable) page, such as a 'credits' page or similar.

Yes, that's just fine. License updated accordingly.

It would be very nice to offer an option to buy away the need for attribution without needing to do so as a one-off request. Glyphicons offers a no brainer price point of $25 to make attribution go away.

Planned and in the works. The paid version will also include all vector icon files as well as a desktop TTF of the font itself.

For an iPhone app, would a link in the app in an about page work?

Absolutely.

Darn. It's a shame that the icons are the only part of Bootstrap not under the same license. I was hoping this font would change that, but it's going to remain a no-go for commercial sites and apps where the company isn't going to create a "credits" page just to link back to CC-BY licensed stuff. They'll just license Glyphicons instead.

In fact, now I'm curious. You took the Glyphicons set and effectively copied it, yes? I don't see a link to Glyphicons on your site, which their license requires. Aren't you therefore infringing their copyright by creating a derivative work without license?

I'm re-considering the license for the font itself. I agree, attribution on a commercial site would not be ideal. Attribution in code, however, seems reasonable.

I used the classes from the Glyphicons set for backwards compatibility, but every icon was designed from scratch. If you look closely, you'll notice many of them are quite different.

How about putting it in humans.txt?

Great work! +1 for attribution in the code on commercial sites.

Attribution in code is unworkable if you minify code as it will no longer be there. Coders who are looking that hard will be able to work out where the awsomeness came from. Embrace a sane open source license please, something that would eg allow distribution with Debian.

Minifiers almost always have an option to preserve specially marked comments for precisely this reason (to preserve the license information).

I would have thought attribution using comments in the main HTML would be an easy solution if you're minifying your CSS.

Are you actually planning to sue people for not providing attribution? If not, you might just want to save yourself the headache by using a more permissive license -- BSD and MIT are popular but if you really like Creative Commons, they have the Zero License:

   https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Up to you, though.

I've updated the license. It's still CC-BY, but the only attribution required is in human-readable code. That means it could be commented in your html, css, or wherever. No need to have it visible in the webpage itself, unless you're feeling generous.

Brilliant. Thanks for the clarification, and for the cool resource!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com