Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On 12/7/06, Terry Hancock <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Does this interfere with dual licensing?
Not following this. You can't dual license unless you are the copyright
holder, and then you always can (unless you are party to an exclusive
rights contract). Sounds like this is simply a (somewhat weak) copyleft.
I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this
definitely disallows it.
>>The requirement for fonts to
>>remain under this license does not apply to any document created
>>using the Font Software.
> As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word
> "document" is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning.
This is a standard exemption for font software. It recognizes that
including a font in a document (e.g. a PDF or Postscript) file does not
cause the license to bind the document.
This is why, for example, the GPL is a bad font license, because if read
technically, it would force all documents written with it to be
released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they
usually apply a similar additional exemption.
Yes, the FSF has their font exemption.
For font users, I would argue that "document" is a well-known term. It
means you can embed the font in documents that use it.
However, let's say that I write a GPL program, including the font in
it somehow. I then proceed to copy it into OOo Writer. Does this
therefore mean that I have an exemption from the copyleft? 'Document'
is not defined. Technically it could be anything text-like, including
source code. Legally it could be more difficult.
-- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)
-- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
Jabber - email@example.com
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net