Re: OFL license analysis
Don Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote:
> This exact argument can be made to apply to programs. We as
> distributors (or our users as users) should be able to make the
> determination whether it's appropriate to break compatibility to fix
> the bug, or keep compatibility and live with the bug. A license really
> has no business forcing technical decisions like that on us or our
> We've allowed a very narrow compromise to require that the name of the
> work itself (or its version) change, but that's it; a requirement that
> other parts of the work change beyond its name goes beyond DFSG §4.
Well, in a sense every font file (the standard version, the italic,
bold, small caps, etc versions) is a work of its own, and the complete
distribution is only an aggregate work. For commercial fonts it is
common that you buy each separately.
Anyway: would, in your opinion, a restriction be acceptable to change
either the version or, as long as there's no technical solution yet that
includes this version in the API, the font name?
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)