Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli <email@example.com> wrote:
> - Eugene cannot use the name "ChangedFont", because it's the name of
> the work he's modifying
> - neither can Eugene use the name "MyFont", because it's the name of
> the work "ChangedFont" is based on
> - Eugene calls his font "EnhancedFont"
> * now there are three Reserved Font Names: "MyFont", "ChangedFont", and
> Is this what you mean?
As far as I can tell, yes.
> Is this kind of /cumulative/ name-change requirement allowed by DFSG#4?
We need copyright permission for each contributing work, so I can't see
how we allow DFSG4 and not allow this.
However, it is a stupid condition, because it does nothing to stop an
unrelated font calling itself MyFont, ChangedFont or EnhanceFont.
Names should be controlled by trademark if one feels strongly enough
to make things under that name non-free. At least putting it in a
copyright licence makes the name-change requirement obvious, stopping
a submarine trademark attack.
> > I think we just need to watch out for
> > people trying to exploit this rename clause to grab unlimited RFNs.
> I strongly dislike check-on-a-case-by-case-basis licenses: could the
> clause be narrowed down, so that we are sure it can only be used in
> DFSG-free manners?
> But, when we pass them both on, are we complying with the OFL, that
> explicitly states that the "Font Software [...] may not be distributed
> under any other license"?
> Or are we in violation?
Aren't we distributing under whatever other licence, but passing on the
offer of the OFL? Of course, I see what you mean if the other licence
also has an only-me clause, it gets muddy. :-/
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct