On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:32:24 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that > > each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name. > > At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can > > reserve an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily > > grow up to the level it makes finding a non-reserved name nearly > > impossible. > > I apologise in that case, for it was not my intention. It can be an > arbitrary restriction on naming, as recently clarified on ofl-discuss. > http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000120.html
Quoting from the message (by Victor Gaultney) that you cite:
| The license does not restrict what can be a RFN. If you have a font
| called 'foo', you can declare 'bar' as a RFN, though I can't think
| of may reasons to do that.
If this is the correct interpretation of the license, then I don't
think this kind of restriction is allowed by DFSG#4, which states,
in part:
| The license may require derived works to carry a different name
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files,
| source or binary, from being modified.)
Forbidding reuse of a the name of the original software is OK,
forbidding an arbitrary name is not.
Don't you agree with me that this goes beyond what is allowed
(again, as a compromise!) by DFSG#4 ?
--
But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpQUjQn0yMYM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
