Re: OFL license analysis

[Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>]

Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:

> 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.

Well, in a sense every font file (the standard version, the italic,
bold, small caps, etc versions) is a work of its own, and the complete
distribution is only an aggregate work.  For commercial fonts it is
common that you buy each separately.

Anyway: would, in your opinion, a restriction be acceptable to change
either the version or, as long as there's no technical solution yet that
includes this version in the API, the font name?

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)