Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
Scripsit Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> | 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in
> | Standard or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
> This clause is not quite DFSG-free, but it is so easy to work around
> it so that it's probably not a real issue.
In fact it _is_ DFSG-free - point 1 of the DFSG explicitly requires
the right to sell only when bundled with something else:
| The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
| selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
| software distribution containing programs from several different
> However, I cant't understand why anyone would put such a thing into
> a new license.
Never underestimate the power of cluelessness.
> However, it seems as if SIL interpets the license that it's not
> permitted to receive money for making modifications, which is
> against the spirit of the DFSG and free software in general (see FAQ
> entry 2.3, which is contradicted by FAQ entry 2.4).
The license and FAQ both seem to allow me to charge money for the
combined service of making some modifications to the font _and_
reimplementing HelloWorld as a bash script, distributing both results
to the customer in a single transaction.
Given the wording of DFSG #1, I don't think we should consider the
Silly Required Bundling a real freedom problem.
Henning Makholm "Skidt med din brud
når der står et par nymfer
i tyl og trikot i den lysegrønne skov!"