Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
Nicolas Spalinger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Nicolas Spalinger <email@example.com>
> >>All the details are available at:
> > The page is not very accessible because [...]
> Sorry about that small design problem, we'll be fixing that bit of the
> ..css soon.
> > 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...
"Similar" is used elsewhere in trademark laws, such as
the Trade Marks Act 1994 currently in force in England:
So, there are examples which might inform what is and isn't
"In whole or in part" is a phrasing I don't remember seeing for
a name. It looks to me like the licence is trying to re-assert
the legal protection of names, so please use common language,
rather than introduce a naming lawyerbomb.
> > 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 Copyright Holder(s) need not be involved in any particular
instance of licensing. Other licensors may be able to grant
permission, so parts of clause 3 may be lies in many reasonably
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct