Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli <email@example.com> wrote:
> > SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006
> > 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components,
> > in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
> This restriction does *not* fail the DFSG (because DFSG#1 only requires
> that software can be sold as a part of an aggregate, which is allowed by
> clause 2 below...), but is, well, moot.
I agree it's a stupid restriction.
> > 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
> > Name(s) unless [...]
> I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved
> Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free.
I see what you mean, but if each RFN comes from one font, then all can
be forbidden while still following DFSG, thanks to the stack of
copyright licences required. I think we just need to watch out for
people trying to exploit this rename clause to grab unlimited RFNs.
> > 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole,
> > must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be
> > distributed under any other license.
> Does this interfere with dual licensing?
I don't think so. The copyright holder is not bound by OFL, so could
offer it under dual licences. If those are public licences, we can pass
them both on.
> > 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.
I'll report back to ofl-discuss shortly.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct