Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> 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.
Surely requiring you not to use trademarked names is par for the course
with font licenses? I think this is the *same* as the DFSG allowing
name-change requirements. In fact, it sounds like they are doing you a
service by providing a list of trademarked names that would be infringing.
>>5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole,
>>must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be
>>distributed under any other license.
>
> Does this interfere with dual licensing?
Not following this. You can't dual license unless you are the copyright
holder, and then you always can (unless you are party to an exclusive
rights contract). Sounds like this is simply a (somewhat weak) copyleft.
>>The requirement for fonts to
>>remain under this license does not apply to any document created
>>using the Font Software.
>
> [...]
>
> As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word
> "document" is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning.
This is a standard exemption for font software. It recognizes that
including a font in a document (e.g. a PDF or Postscript) file does not
cause the license to bind the document.
This is why, for example, the GPL is a bad font license, because if read
technically, it would force all documents written with it to be
released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they
usually apply a similar additional exemption.
For font users, I would argue that "document" is a well-known term. It
means you can embed the font in documents that use it.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock@AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
Reply to: