Re: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
Florian Weimer wrote:
* 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.
In materialising this into a concrete suggestion, do you guys suggest
something like:
Change
"3. The Font Software may not be modified or altered in any way, except
that: (a) the Fonts may be converted from one format to another (e.g.,
from TrueType to Postscript), in which case the normal and reasonable
distortion that occurs during such conversion shall be permitted; and
(b) additional glyphs or characters may be added to the Fonts, so long
as the base set of glyphs is not modified or removed."
to
"The Font Software may not be modified or altered in any way, except
that: (a) the Fonts may be converted from one format to another (e.g.,
from TrueType to Postscript), in which case the normal and reasonable
distortion that occurs during such conversion shall be permitted; and
(b) additional glyphs or characters may be added to the Fonts."
and the rest stays the same.
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.
Another suggestion would then be:
"You may use the license that the Bitstream Vera fonts are distributed
with, available at http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ (Section "Copyright").
This license has already been approved by free and open source projects."
All in all, I think we stand that
http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html
is equivalent with
http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ (Copyright)
apart from 3b which does not allow the potential modification of the
base glyphs (characters).
Right?
An argument why 3b should be amended to allow modification of the base
glyphs is that in practice there is little incentive to change existing
glyphs. Examining the example of Bitstream Vera, there is no documented
"modification/fixing" of any existing glyphs but only additions, to
support Cyrillic, Greek and other alphabets.
In addition, Stixfonts have (see www.stixfonts.org, then Table of
included characters) Latin Extended A, Latin Extended B, Cyrillic and
Greek. Therefore, if I were to make a prediction, the fonts will be
included as is, using the name Stixfonts, with no modifications at all.
The comment link at http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html is
working now.
Feel free to make consice and constructive suggestions! :)
Simos
p.s.
I am not affiliated with StixFonts or any of the companies behind the
project. I just want to see those (and more) quality fonts in Linux
distros, be included by default.
Reply to: