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

Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?



On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:21:19 +0000 Gervase Markham wrote:

> 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 Font Software.
> > 
> > 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?

The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve
an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up to
the level it makes finding a non-reserved name nearly impossible.

The license states:

| Copyright (c) <dates>, <Copyright Holder> (<URL|email>),
| with Reserved Font Name <Reserved Font Name>. All Rights Reserved.
| Copyright (c) <dates>, <additional Copyright Holder> (<URL|email>),
| with Reserved Font Name <additional Reserved Font Name>. All Rights
| Reserved.
[...]
| 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.

The Copyright notice templates seem to imply that each copyright holder
gets the right to veto *one* Font Name.

On the other hand

| "Reserved Font Name" refers to the Font Software name as seen by users
| and any other names as specified after the copyright statement.

could be interpreted as permitting more than one Reserved Font Name per
copyright statement.


Am I the only one who begins to see DFSG#4 as a slippery slope?

[...]
> 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.

Nor do I, but I felt that I should point out the vagueness anyway.
Maybe someone else can suggest a solution (or at least a way to enhance
things a bit)...

-- 
But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend.   -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpjDNuueAWTR.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: