On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:37:18 +0100 Christian Perrier wrote: > (please keep the crossposting. [...] Done. > Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (nicolas_spalinger@sil.org): > > Hi everyone, > > > > I think this will be of interest to the Debian maintainers on this > > list. > > > > > > The Open Font License 1.1 is now released. > > > What do the debian-legal people think about it? > > I have not followed discussions closely but the very few I have seen > showed at least some debate. The last thread on the OFL that I remember starts here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00061.html It was about the OFL 1.1review2. My conclusion was that works solely released under the terms of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the work. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00168.html > > I guess that we now should know whether OFL licensed material would be > considered as DFSG compliant or not. That will definitely determine if > we, Debian font packages maintainers, encourage font authors to adopt > OFL or not. I see that the full license text has been posted to debian-legal for review. I'll try to find the time to analyze it soon... -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpDvyREeJSTz.pgp
Description: PGP signature