Re: OFL license analysis
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> > 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.
> Yes, and this is considered a feature. Usually existing documents
> should not break because a font is changed, even if this fixes a
The same argument applies equally well to programs. We should be
intelligent enough in our fixing of bugs in fonts not to break
existing documents, just like we should be intelligent enough in our
fixing of bugs in programs not to break existing scripts.
We've proven in the past to be quite capable of doing that, at least
in most cases. [When we're not, we have the ability to determine which
is the proper course of action: breaking compatibility or living with
> > 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.
You can't install two programs with the same name either. [Before
anyone bothers to tell me about $PATH, the same argument applies to
fonts as well.]
In any event, we're not just talking about the mere renaming of a file
that DFSG #4 allows; the clause in question goes much farther than
-- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html