Re: OFL license analysis
>What you're trying to prevent is clear, it's just not necessary to use
>a license to do this. Consider the following: Debian decides to
>distribute works containing your font. The original upstream
>disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and Debian needs to fix
>it. We can no longer distribute a fixed version of the font that
>interoperates seamlessly with existing user's documents because we're
>required to change the name of the font.
Yes, and this is considered a feature.
Usually existing documents should not break because a font is changed,
even if this fixes a bug.
>In the case where we introduce a change that breaks the end-user
>documents, end-users are (hopefully) intelligent enough to realize
>that they've gotten a version that is broken, and go about tracking
>down the version that they actually want.
You cannot install at the same time two fonts with the same name, and
anyway you should not force users to do this.