> I believe it should be Public Domain, CC-Zero, OFL, and > GPLv3-orLater+FE, but I forget if we reached a consensus when this was > discussed previously.
The consensus we had reached was that we'd focus on font-specific
licenses and limit the library to only:
MIT, OFL and GPLv3+font-exception
we offer a easy to understand spectrum of:
- MIT: attribution-only non-copyleft
permits: Distribution, Reproduction, DerivativeWorks
requires: Attribution, Notice
- OFL: copyleft + community-validated font-specific mechanisms
permits: Distribution, Reproduction, Embedding, DerivativeWorks
requires: Attribution, Notice, ShareAlike, DerivativeRenaming,
BundlingWhenSelling
- GPLv3+font-exception: copyleft + font-source requirements (and still a
bunch of things to be fixed... and more community input)
permits: Distribution, Reproduction, Embedding, DerivativeWorks
requires: Attribution, Notice, ShareAlike,
ExtendedSourcesFullRedistribution ... (some requirements may disappear
downstream)
The troubles with "public domain" (grey areas with the definition and
legit traceability issues for example) have been discussed at length
already and CC combinations are designed for content and not software:
http://jay.tuley.name/archives/2006/03/27/5-reasons-not-to-choose-a-Creative-Commons-license-for-code
3 models to choose from is already more than enough. Most of the
community has chosen the middle of the spectrum already...
Too many licenses fragment our community.
--
Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary
http://planet.open-fonts.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
