Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
Nicolas Spalinger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> All the details are available at:
The page is not very accessible because you set color without
a background-color (set both or preferably neither, please)
and you seem to be using 8pt body text (ow). It's really not
nice to make it so small. I deactivated stylesheets to make
it readable, so apologies if I miss any hidden emphasis.
| 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual
| components, in Standard or Modified Versions, may be sold
| by itself.
I am unhappy with this discrimination against commerce, but
the workarounds are trivial.
| 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
| Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is
| granted by the Copyright Holder. [...]
"in part" seems excessive: what does it mean? If the RFN is
Facetious, can I use any vowels in my MV's name? Lawyerbomb.
I suggest "No Modified Version of the Font Software may use a
name that is confusingly similar to the Reserved Font Name(s)
unless explicit written permission is given by the Licensor."
Elsewhere, "Copyright Holder" is capitalised but undefined and
probably not relevant: I think Licensor is more relevant.
> The dicussion continues and we're now looking for what -legal thinks.
> We've got font debs ready to go.
Hope that helps,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct