On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:36:18 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006 > > [...] [...] > > > 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved > > > Font Name(s) unless [...] > > I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of > > Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. > > I see what you mean, but if each RFN comes from one font, then all can > be forbidden while still following DFSG, thanks to the stack of > copyright licences required.
IIUC, you are basically saying that everything is fine *as long as*
each Reserved Font Name has been used for one previous version of the
Font Software.
For instance:
* "MyFont" is released by Mark Fontdesigner under this license
* Chuck Fontmodifier takes "MyFont" and creates a modified version
- Chuck releases his modified font under this license, with the name
"ChangedFont"
* Eugene Fontenhancer further modifies "ChangedFont" and releases the
result under this same license
- Eugene cannot use the name "ChangedFont", because it's the name of
the work he's modifying
- neither can Eugene use the name "MyFont", because it's the name of
the work "ChangedFont" is based on
- Eugene calls his font "EnhancedFont"
* now there are three Reserved Font Names: "MyFont", "ChangedFont", and
"EnhancedFont"
Is this what you mean?
Is this kind of /cumulative/ name-change requirement allowed by DFSG#4?
> I think we just need to watch out for
> people trying to exploit this rename clause to grab unlimited RFNs.
I strongly dislike check-on-a-case-by-case-basis licenses: could the
clause be narrowed down, so that we are sure it can only be used in
DFSG-free manners?
>
> > [...]
> > > 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole,
> > > must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be
> > > distributed under any other license.
> >
> > Does this interfere with dual licensing?
>
> I don't think so. The copyright holder is not bound by OFL, so could
> offer it under dual licences. If those are public licences, we can
> pass them both on.
But, when we pass them both on, are we complying with the OFL, that
explicitly states that the "Font Software [...] may not be distributed
under any other license"?
Or are we in violation?
--
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
pgpwdKjXiIvxv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
