Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> 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.
I apologise in that case, for it was not my intention. It can be an
arbitrary restriction on naming, as recently clarified on ofl-discuss.
http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000120.html
This use of a copyright licence to try to enforce a trademark is why I
think every packager of OFL'd software must beware this potential hole.
I know it's not good, but it's far better than the last OFL version.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: