[adrusi]

Copyright infringement != plagiarism. They're not violating the copyright because they abide by the terms of the license.

They're also not plagiarising because they clearly cite its original source. They even go so far as to say "deeply rooted in" which seems to me like a euphamism for "virtually identical to".

The point here isn't that it's illegal or immoral, just kind of uninteresting.

[kaoD]

If, for example, someone repackaged a public domain font without attributing source, I wouldn't call that plagiarism either.

In my definition of plagiarism it implies unauthorized use (i.e. not complying with the license) but I guess that's open to interpretation.

So it'd still be uninteresting, unimaginative, not original work... but not plagiarism.