Re: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
- To: Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Simos Xenitellis <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
- From: Sven Luther <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:19:37 +0200
- Message-id: <20050901061937.GA578@localhost.localdomain>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <4314A986.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:37:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Simos Xenitellis:
> > The StixFonts project started 10 years ago by several publishing houses
> > of academic journals,
> > with the aim to create fonts for mathmetical publications.
> > These fonts, StixFonts, are nearing completion and at this point a draft
> > user license
> > has been made available at
> > http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html
> | The Font Software may not be modified or altered in any way, except
> | that: (a) the Fonts may be converted from one format to another
> | (e.g., from TrueType to Postscript), in which case the normal and
> | reasonable distortion that occurs during such conversion shall be
> | permitted; and (b) additional glyphs or characters may be added to
> | the Fonts, so long as the base set of glyphs is not modified or
> | removed.
> Clearly non-free.
> I can understand why people think that such a clause is a technical
> necessity (reproducible layout), but it still violates DFSG clause 3.
What about a clause mandating that the layout size or whatever it is called,
remains the same for existing fonts ?
But i think the easiest way out here is to allow modifications of fonts, but
forcing name change if there is modification of existing glyphs.
BTW, i wonder why the vera bitstream licence could not be used as is by this
project, in order to avoid yet another licence, and probably cut down lawyer
fees. (That said, if you are discussing with the lawyer ...)