I’d like to clarify the licensing around the ADG components.
The guidance here is confusing and an older thread on the topic seems outdated.
All Atlaskit packages I could find (including icons and logo) have a LICENSE file indicating an Apache 2.0 license (e.g. here). This is at odds with description on the ADG license page which states:
“While most components are licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, please note packages containing styles, assets & icons are licensed under the Atlassian Design Guidelines license.”
Could someone clarify exactly what is covered under ADG vs Apache 2.0?
Ok, quick disclaimer: not a lawyer and not Atlassian Staff.
However, this topic has been discussed previously and as far as I remember, the distinction has to do with the fact that the code & components itself are mostly Apache 2.0, but everything related to Atlassian branding (which includes style, assets & icons) are part of the ADG license.
So when using the
@atlaskit/icon package you need to adhere to Apache 2.0, however as soon as you place one of the actual Atlassian icons from the package onto your application, the ADG license applies to the use of that icon. Which means that most of the contents of the
@atlaskit/icon package is prohibited if not used…
…in connection with creating, testing, and distributing plugins, extensions, add-ons or other software products or services that interoperate or are integrated with Atlassian’s software and hosted products ( “Add-Ons” ).
So now the question is going to be: which parts of each package does Atlassian consider
styles, assets & icons? That I cannot answer for you, and I would be surprised if Atlassian can give you a straight answer to that.
I would personally avoid any commercial use of AtlasKit components outside of Atlassian Ecosystem. Using AtlasKit components in a OSS project will probably not immediately stir the pot, unless it grows to big and does not align with Atlassian’ interests. At that point they might intervene based on the ADG license. But that will always be a tricky balance, given the possibility of public backlash. Basically, like many other OSS license conundrums, we will only know when it actually happens.