On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 06:03:12PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: > > I think something like the LPPL would merely do the trick. Modifying the > > font would be allowed, but would also require a name change. > > After looking over the LPPL, it looks like it would do the job. Do you know > of any precedent for LPPL being used for packages containing nothing but > fonts, and in particular, fonts not specific to TeX/LaTeX? It would be nice > to be able to cite such precedents when recommending the license to > fontographers.
There was a very long thread about the LPPL on debian-legal, and it hasn't been settled. (Requiring name changes are allowed by the DFSG, but there's no consensus that this includes *filename* changes.) I'd strongly suggest avoiding this license. -- Glenn Maynard