Re: OFL license analysis
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > The same argument applies equally well to programs. We should be
> > intelligent enough in our fixing of bugs in fonts not to break
> > existing documents,
>
> That's plain impossible. A bug in a font could be a wrong kerning.
[...]
> There's simply no solution that allows both for stable docments and
> for bug fixing.
There are clearly some classes of bugs which entail breaking
compatibility with existing programs or existing documents. To whit:
[When we're not, we have the ability to determine which is the proper
course of action: breaking compatibility or living with the
bug.] [1]
> if you've got a font that is in wide use and regarded as stable,
> changing the kerning is a design decision and should in fact change
> the name under which the font is available to the user and to
> documents.
This exact argument can be made to apply to programs. We as
distributors (or our users as users) should be able to make the
determination whether it's appropriate to break compatibility to fix
the bug, or keep compatibility and live with the bug. A license really
has no business forcing technical decisions like that on us or our
users.
We've allowed a very narrow compromise to require that the name of the
work itself (or its version) change, but that's it; a requirement that
other parts of the work change beyond its name goes beyond DFSG §4.
Don Armstrong
1: <[🔎] 20060129215540.GD17042@rzlab.ucr.edu>
--
Frankly, if ignoring inane opinions and noisy people and not flaming
them to crisp is bad behaviour, I have not yet achieved a state of
nirvana.
-- Manoj Srivastava in 87n04pzhmh.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: