Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Important side issue:
> "No modification of the license is permitted, only verbatim copy is
> Don't do this. Marking license texts as "verbatim copy only" is a bad habit
> and I encourage people not to.
> You want something more like the following:
> "The OFL license text may be used, copied, and redistributed, modified or
> unmodified, without royalty, provided modified versions are renamed. Of
> course, this Font Software is only licensed under the actual, unmodified
> OFL, not under any modified version you may happen to find or create; but
> you may license your own wholly independent works under a modified version.
> We recommend not doing so, since license proliferation causes trouble."
I'm not sure an ambiguity like that would really help against license
proliferation. Defining in details what you could do and then recommend
*not doing it* at the end is a bit of a contradication and IMHO really
less than ideal.
Could you elaborate a bit on why you think the "verbatim copy only" is
problematic? IIRC it's used in DFSG-validated licenses.
There are already too many non-reusable project and
organisation-specific font licenses out there. That's certainly *more
trouble* from the font designer's, the packager and the user's
perspective. I don't think we want more licenses.
SIL has done some serious research in the area of font licensing and -
through our interaction with various key members of the FLOSS and type
communities - we feel the OFL is re-usable and neutral enough that it
will fist most needs while satisfying the golden standards of Free
Software. Of course we rely on the community's collective review to
further refine the license if needed.