Hi, On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 21:02, Jeff Licquia wrote: > The big problem that glares out at me is the "cannot sell by itself" > clause. I vaguely remember that d-legal considers that to be a silly > restriction that has no effect on freeness, but I could be wrong.
It is certainly not in the spirit of the DFSG but most people seem to read DFSG 1 as allowing it. (Just add one extra character, rename and you are done it seems.) > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a > copy of the fonts accompanying this license (“Fonts”) and associated > documentation files (the “Font Software”), to reproduce and distribute > the Font Software, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, > merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Font Software, and > to permit persons to whom the Font Software is furnished to do so, > subject to the following conditions: I found the difference between "Fonts" and "Font Software" confusing. What they call software refers to the associated documentation files. I assume that the permissions (and restrictions) are for both the "Fonts" and the "Font Software". But (not being a native speaker) this is not immediatly clear. Also copyrights (which attach to the copying/distribution policy) and trademarks (which attach to the naming issue) are very different things. So it might make sense to suggest that they split these two issues a bit more (for example what happens when BitStream loses the trademark on the Vera name?). Cheers, Mark