Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>]

Gervase Markham wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
>> Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the
>> license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction.
> 
> It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list
> for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's not a freeness issue,
> let's focus on more important stuff (if there is any).
> 
>> Actually, DFSG#4 states, in part:
>> 
>> | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
>> | version number from the original software.
>> 
>> This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the
>> original software is acceptable.
>> I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved
>> Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free.
> 
> I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Because all of the Reserved Font
> Names will have been used for the font in the ancestor version tree of
> the software somewhere, they are all the name of the "original software"
> - at different points in its development.

Right, if that's guaranteed, then it should be a DFSG-free restriction.  Can
that ever be not the case (a Reserved Font Name sneaking in somehow)?

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@fastmail.fm>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...