On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 +0000 MJ Ray wrote: > Does the new draft available at > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL_review&_sc=1#db4033e4-5239a507 > let software follow the DFSG? [...] > the licence itself says: [...] > ----------------------------------------------------------- > SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006 > ----------------------------------------------------------- [...] > 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, > in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. This restriction does *not* fail the DFSG (because DFSG#1 only requires that software can be sold as a part of an aggregate, which is allowed by clause 2 below...), but is, well, moot. I can prepare the following fantastic 2 byte long script: $ cat whoelse.sh w and sell the Font Software bundled with my unique `whoelse.sh'. Wow! Now that's what is called "value-added software"! ;-) Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction. > > 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, > redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy > contains the above copyright notice and this license. [...] > > 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font > Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the > corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the > primary font name as presented to the users. IMO, this restriction fails the DFSG, because it's a restriction on modification (DFSG#3) that goes beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4 (which, please remember, is already a compromise). Actually, DFSG#4 states, in part: | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or | version number from the original software. This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the original software is acceptable. I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. [...] > 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, > must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be > distributed under any other license. Does this interfere with dual licensing? > The requirement for fonts to > remain under this license does not apply to any document created > using the Font Software. [...] As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word "document" is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp72HANU3MnP.pgp
Description: PGP signature