Francesco Poli wrote:
Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction.
It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's not a freeness issue, let's focus on more important stuff (if there is any).
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.
I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Because all of the Reserved Font Names will have been used for the font in the ancestor version tree of the software somewhere, they are all the name of the "original software" - at different points in its development.
I agree that trademark law is a better venue for this sort of restriction, and I have argued as much on the OFL list. But I don't think this quirk makes the license non-free.
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.
Do you have a proposed definition? What sort of things do you suggest some people might consider documents and others not?
Gerv