Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
MJ Ray wrote:
> 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.
Sorry about that small design problem, we'll be fixing that bit of the
> | 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.
Yes, it's somewhat of a cultural middle ground between the FLOSS and
font design communities.
> | 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.
Yes, this is an area of possible ambiguity that we're looking at
clarifying for future refinements of the license.
The "in part" is really meant to cover the case when there are various
words used in reserved font names. The unit to consider here is the word.
But for now, version 1.0 - which is in use for the Gentium font family
and will be for other projects next January - has been validated by the
FSF and the SFLC (the update to license-list.html is imminent).
> 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."
Maybe similarity isn't a very clear legal word either...
FAQ entry 2.7 has "When choosing a name be creative and try to avoid
names that sound like the original."
> Elsewhere, "Copyright Holder" is capitalised but undefined and
> probably not relevant: I think Licensor is more relevant.
Could you please elaborate a bit on that?
>>The dicussion continues and we're now looking for what -legal thinks.
>>We've got font debs ready to go.
> Hope that helps,
Yes it does. Thank you,