Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli wrote:
I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names
can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the
Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my
concerns go away?
There is no such clause. What sort of abuse do you think this loophole
enables? After all, even if there was such a clause, I could make 200
trivially different versions of the font, each one from the next and
each with a name I wished to reserve. But what would be the point?
Do you have a proposed definition? What sort of things do you suggest
some people might consider documents and others not?
As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the
word "document" is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning.
I don't have one, since I think that clearly drawing lines to tell
various software categories apart is really hard.
This discussion has showed up many times on debian-legal, at least since
the GFDL times (I think it was 2002 or 2003): I believe there are no
clearcut boundaries between documents, programs, images, audio/video
works, and so forth. They can be classified in most cases, but the
boundaries are always blurred. Hence defining what a "document" is,
turns out to be hard.
Given that we clearly need an exception for documents to avoid the
problem which led to the GPL font exception, if you can't suggest
alternative wording, I'm not really sure how to proceed.