From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: john at keeping.me.uk (John Keeping)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:20:21 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] css: use less blurry icon for external link
In-Reply-To: <20160223111439.02b657a7@leda.localdomain>
References: <1456220845-4573-1-git-send-email-list@eworm.de>
 <20160223100707.GG1766@serenity.lan>
 <20160223111439.02b657a7@leda.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20160223102021.GI1766@serenity.lan>

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:14:39AM +0100, Christian Hesse wrote:
> John Keeping <john at keeping.me.uk> on Tue, 2016/02/23 10:07:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Christian Hesse wrote:
> > > Your mileage may vary, but for me the old icon looks blurry. The new
> > > one is character 0xf08e from OTF font awsome in size 10.
> > > The icon color is black, gray level is adjusted via opacity.  
> > 
> > What's the licensing status of individual glyphs from Font Awesome?
> > IANAL but my reading of the OFL is that it's not compatible with the
> > GPL.
> 
> What we have is the icon from awesome font, no?
> Probably scaled down from one of the example images?
> 
> http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/icon/external-link/

I didn't realise that, I pointed at Wikipedia when I suggested using an
icon in CSS :-)

There's a comment on the FontAwesome GitHub repo [1] that gives a lot of
sources indicating that the OFL is not compatible with the GPL so I
think we should be using something else here, at least in the main
distribution.  If individual sites want to do something different that's
their choice.

[1] https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/1124#issuecomment-28703032

> > The nice thing about the icon from Wikipedia is that it's already
> > licensed under the GPLv2 so we don't have to worry about whether it's
> > compatible (although it might be a good idea to credit the source in a
> > comment).
> 
> The wikipedia icon looks different.
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Icon_External_Link.png