Sure thing, and I did glance through the github repo for an obvious contact point and couldn't see one. I figured you'd be reading HN and this would be dealt with far quicker by just posting here.

I haven't checked for other things but the same logic about protecting original licensed works should be borne in mind for any commissioned artwork, icon sets, widgets, third party items, fonts, etc.

An open-source version should go into the project (safe defaults that work), and the closed-source/licensed things should just be merged during deploy.

I only glanced for a few seconds, but custom icons and images are the other obvious areas of concern given it's your brand identity and you probably aren't open-sourcing that and have restrictions on how those assets are used.

Sorry a contact point was not obvious. There is a link at the bottom of the mobile site (top of the desktop site) that says "Contact us". Or we appreciate Github issues as well.

Generic advice for all HNers: if you publish things to the Internet, a single responsible party (which can be a bunch of people, as long as they can share an email address) with a PGP key is a very cheap investment in not having your dirty laundry aired on Twitter/HN/Pastebin/less savory places.

Specific advice to the Guardian: I'd encourage you to take the above generic advice.

Wouldn't this defeat the point of having this project open-sourced?

That's not so great either, since this kind of page on newspaper sites and corporate sites tend to be black holes.

When visiting the mobile site, you're initially greeted explaining it's a beta, and there's a link in the greeting to offer feedback. I dismissed it and started browsing, and intended to report a bug -- but then the feedback link was nowhere obvious, so I figured someone else would eventually look deeper.

The bug in question in case it's not reported yet: the very first article has a title that overlays the date when browsing on an iPad in portrait mode. (You should be using min-height somewhere instead of height, or worry about headline lengths.)

Thanks for sharing your experience. We are testing multiple versions of the homepage at the moment and are working on fixing these overflowing headlines.

PS: Thanks to your feedback, I reported to my colleagues the fact that we may want to give our beta/alpha readers a chance to send us feedback through the survey after dismissing it.

Try placing it at the very bottom of the page. Something like "This site is in alpha/beta/whatever. Please send us feedback by email or on github."

Re the contact link, the contact us page seems clear enough now that I actually peeked at it. (The problem here isn't so much what the Guardian is doing than it is what others are doing. All too often, it's impossible to find any useful email or phone number, and taking a step to contact a company amounts to wasting your time. I can't remember the last time I bothered to look at any large company's contact us page.)

If the fonts have been distributed under an Apache license, can you just 'take them back?' I'm pretty sure they're free now.

>Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

It's not clear that the Guardian owns the rights to relicense the assets, especially since they apparently were included by accident. If they don't own the licensing rights then the apparent license would be invalid. So for all practical purposes for third parties that might be interested in using the assets, I think they would have to be considered them improperly licensed regarding this Apache License "release" until The Guardian shows that this is not the case. And given that it was an accident, I don't see why they would do that.

[edit: clarity]

The law is not a magic spell, where an extra eye of newt at the wrong time can magically transform somebody else's property into communal property.

The Guardian's license most likely doesn't cover those files, as they are not owned by The Guardian.

They may not have had the right to release these fonts under the Apache license in the first place.