Re: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
* Sven Luther:
>> Clearly non-free.
>>
>> I can understand why people think that such a clause is a technical
>> necessity (reproducible layout), but it still violates DFSG clause 3.
>
> What about a clause mandating that the layout size or whatever it is called,
> remains the same for existing fonts ?
I don't think the font people would accept this. We shouldn't,
either.
> But i think the easiest way out here is to allow modifications of fonts, but
> forcing name change if there is modification of existing glyphs.
Exactly, this is what Bitstream Vera's license requires.
> BTW, i wonder why the vera bitstream licence could not be used as is by this
> project, in order to avoid yet another licence, and probably cut down lawyer
> fees. (That said, if you are discussing with the lawyer ...)
Probably the same reason why Cisco's competitors don't use their free
networking schematics. 8-)
Reply to: