Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
frx@firenze.linux.it wrote:
>Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the
>license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction.
I would suggest you try to understand the rationale for adding this
"useless" restriction. Or do you believe tha the drafters are morons
who like to add useless clauses to licenses just for fun?
>> 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled,
>> redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy
>> contains the above copyright notice and this license. [...]
>>
>> 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
>> Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the
>> corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the
>> primary font name as presented to the users.
>
>IMO, this restriction fails the DFSG, because it's a restriction on
>modification (DFSG#3) that goes beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4
>(which, please remember, is already a compromise).
I disagree. I believe that these clauses are fully in the spirit of
DFSG#4.
--
ciao,
Marco
Reply to: