Philippe, I presume your response was intended for Luke. If not, you may want to re-read the thread.
On 09/10/16 15:37, Philippe Verdy wrote: > The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also > explicitly allows reselling (rule DFSG #1): > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL > > It is not directly compatible with the GPL in a composite product, but > with LGPL there's no problem, and there's no problem if the font is > clearly separable and distributed along with its licence, even if the > software coming with it or the package containing it is commercial: you > are allowed to detach it from the package and redistribute. > > Really you are challenging the licence for unfair reasons > May be you just think that the GPL or MIT licences are enough. > > Or you'd like the Public Domain (which in fact offers no protection and > no long term warranty as it is reappropriatable at any time by > proprietary licences, even retrospectively, we see everyday companies > registering properties on pseudo-new technologies that are in fact > inherited from the past and are used since centuries or more by the > whole humanity, they leave some space only for today's current usages in > limtied scopes, but protect everything else by inventing some strange > concepts around the basic feature, with unfair claims and then want to > collect taxes). Also an international public domain does not exist at > all (it is always restricted by new additions to the copyright laws). > Publishing somethingf in the Public domain is really unsafe. > > 2016-10-09 5:35 GMT+02:00 Harshula <harsh...@hj.id.au > <mailto:harsh...@hj.id.au>>: > > 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 > <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 > <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, > #
