Paul Wise wrote: > I'd strongly suggest to indicate a preference about which license you > would like them to choose. > > I would personally suggest standard FLOSS licenses like BSD, > MIT/Expat, ISC, GPL + font exception etc. If those aren't acceptable, > the SIL OFL is a DFSG-compatible compromise between font foundry needs > and free software principles. Yes! Recommending a particular validated model and explaining how it will benefit both upstream and downstream is much more effective in such advocacy efforts. I recommend you take advantage of the campaign resources on http://www.unifont.org/go_for_ofl/ Considering how various key Libre Software communities have given their support to the licensing model it seems like a good model to recommend to URW. Various fonts in CTAN are under OFL as well. Hopefully your advocacy efforts will benefit many people throughout the communities. Thanks! Let us know how it goes. BTW the font exception for the GPL still has a bunch of unsolved problems. I wouldn't recommend that. Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary http://planet.open-fonts.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature