On 09/10/16 13:50, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote: >> On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote: >>> It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(
FSF appears to classify OFL as a Free license (though incompatible with the GNU GPL & FDL): https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Fonts >> Which alternate license would you recommend? > > MIT license or LGPL seem reasonable and common among free fonts. Some also > choose GPL, but AFAIK it's unclear how the LGPL vs GPL differences apply to > fonts. Interestingly, Noto project saw advantages of OFL and moved to using it, not too long ago: https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/blob/master/NEWS It seems you disagree with FSF's interpretation of the OFL and bundling Hello World as being sufficient. Are there other reasons for your preference for MIT/LGPL/GPL over OFL? > On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:16:37 AM you wrote: >> That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and >> of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone >> else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort >> into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the >> moral rights of the developer. Why are you attributing Shriramana Sharma's email to me? It might be clearer if you replied to his email. cya, #