Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:50 AM, minombresbond wrote: > > Warning: SIL Open Font License > > http://perens.com/blog/2009/02/17/64/ > > Can't tell until he bothers to actually explain the problem. So far he > only managed to say how lousy creators of OFL were.
The page says "The SIL representative I communicated with [...]" so SIL already know. Is it good or not that he's not telling the world how to break out of the OFL? I think debian-legal contributors already pointed out at least possible one escape route (the non-definition of "document"). I don't know if that's what Bruce Perens spotted or if there's something more subtle and powerful. The main reaction from the SIL side to debian-legal's examination was to degenerate into ad hominem attacks and ignore or deny almost every point. I'm not sure whether any change was made to OFL in reaction to any comment from debian-legal. For example, see the discussion http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/28307 (The ofl-discuss list archive doesn't respond to me - anyone know where it went?) It's reasonably easy for an experienced eye to tell that one can't rely on SIL's accuracy. The bogus claim "The OFL complies with the Debian Free Software Guidelines" still appears on the SIL website: it can't, by definition, because the DFSG apply to software - there is no blanket approval for licences and you can even botch the GPL if you try hard enough. Software under OFL 1.1 can meet the DFSG, but the ability to convert to public domain would actually help that! Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
