On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:31:57AM +0200, Khaled Hosny wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:41:03PM -0700, Vernon Adams wrote: > > Still not seeing why no RFN needs to be the default position. I'm very > > open to persuasive argument tho. > > Because almost all free software licenses do not have such a provision > (I can only think of TeX license, which is pre historical, and the LPPL > which is apparently influenced by TeX license), so what is so special > about fonts in the first place? Incidentally I removed RFN from my fonts > few weeks ago because I felt it is just a silly provision and I have no > idea why I went for it in the first place :)
Actually people were making modified versions of the said font even with the RFN, and telling those people they are violating the license seemed so harsh so I didn’t bother. Regards, Khaled
