[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OFL license analysis



On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 02:25:34 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
[...]
> > if you've got a font that is in wide use and regarded as stable,
> > changing the kerning is a design decision and should in fact change
> > the name under which the font is available to the user and to
> > documents.
> 
> 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
> users.
> 
> 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.

Exactly!
Agreed entirely.

-- 
    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
......................................................................
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpHN5mUpmV6B.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: