Help with licensing questions

[Stephen Hartke]

Nicolas (S),

Thanks for your contribution to the thread!  More below.

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Nicolas Spalinger <
nicolas_spalinger at sil.org> wrote:

> The OFL doesn't refuse to admit that font sources exist - rather the
> contrary - it acknowledges the fact that beyond the binary font files
> themselves, which you can already do something with, there are a lot of
> different elements which can be used as extended font sources. It avoids
>  the problematic question of defining precise source requirements for
> the "preferred form of modification" when there are various ways of
> modifying and building a font: "preferred" for who exactly? A very
> strict source requirement would alienate the vast majority of designers
> we want to see joining our community!
>

I agree that the question of sources is very tricky, and probably for the
majority of fonts, it doesn't make sense.  In that sense, I think the OFL is
a realistic license.


> So the OFL model intentionally doesn't place strict requirements on
> releasing these extended sources needed for a full build but at the same
> time it *makes it possible and strongly encourages* (via the FAQ) the
> author choosing this model to release everything that can be useful to
> designers: data files, glyph databases, smart code, build scripts,
> documentation and rendering samples.


However, in the case that I actually have sources (and more than just build
scripts), I want those to be protected in the sense that modification of
those sources must also be redistributed along with the corresponding
modified font.  I don't see that the OFL would require this, and so I don't
see the OFL as the right license for the sources.

Best wishes,
Stephen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/attachments/20090215/6347cf3e/attachment.htm>