Re: [OpenFontLibrary] OpenFontLibrary Digest, Vol 35, Issue 29
>I think requiring the font exception would be ideal - ie, removing the >2nd category above. > >FWIW, I don't agree. I liked your earlier conception much better: if >it's under a free software license, it can be in OFLB. For one thing, >it makes for a much simpler decision process than "we accept free >licenses a, b, c, but not d, e, and f". What basis is there to exclude >some? > >It is possible a font designer would *choose* to license under GPL >without font exception. Not that I know of any actual examples, it's >always just been ignorance, but it's conceivable. > > the largest collection I know of are the URW fonts that are > distributed as part of Ghostscript, which predate the "font > exception." > >A form of the GPL font exception appears in the PFB's of most of the URW >font packages I have seen, although whether it was legally added, I >don't know. Aladdin and URW don't answer on these topics, in my >experience :(. Adding a font embedding exception to any license does make it (the license) non-canonical to start with. 2ndly...is it really needed? An open source license by itself should be enough to embed fonts in documents. Each license needs to be evaluated to see if it really needs a font embedding exception. 3rd...IF for whatever reason someone wanted this, it would be possible to use an open source license for a font, but NOT allow embedding. (That would have to be in a hypothetical derivative / add on license & in the font's metadata settings.) It's actually probably more likely an open source font author made some mistake in including a no embedding option in the font metadata, at least in the case of an open source font with a no embedding option engaged. Ghostscript also includes the Hershey Fonts, a set of public domain fonts... I've wondered if there are modern versions of the Hershey Fonts avalible, ie .ttf & .otf. The Hershey fonts are a standout among public domain fonts insofar as they are not dedicated to the public domain, instead they were created by the U.S. Federal Government. (whose works are public domain) A common distribution of the Hershey fonts includes this statement: USE RESTRICTION: This distribution of the Hershey Fonts may be used by anyone for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, providing that: 1. The following acknowledgements must be distributed with the font data: - The Hershey Fonts were originally created by Dr. A. V. Hershey while working at the U. S. National Bureau of Standards. - The format of the Font data in this distribution was originally created by James Hurt Cognition, Inc. 900 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821 (mit-eddie!ci-dandelion!hurt) 2. The font data in this distribution may be converted into any other format *EXCEPT* the format distributed by the U.S. NTIS (which organization holds the rights to the distribution and use of the font data in that particular format). Not that anybody would really *want* to use their format... each point is described in eight bytes as "xxx yyy:", where xxx and yyy are the coordinate values as ASCII numbers. ^^ I wonder if NTIS's format provides more accuracy than James Hurt's format. I also wonder about the accuracy of _2. The font data..._ Seems very dubious. If all he did was convert NTIS's data, nobody would have to follow these usage restrictions at all, #1 or #2. **AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear0001)
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [Fontforge-users] importing font from PDF crashes
On Nov 11, 2008, at 15:42, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh I see; you refer to some old PDF extraction lore on the web, that suggested using AR to print a PDF to PS and then get the font data from that PS? This should be possible as long as the font is still in the printer memory - Years ago with the aid of a PostScript programming language manual, a serial cable attached to an NEC PostScript printer and the COM1 port on my PC, and a terminal emulator - I tried this and found it works, by causing the printer to send back the fonts as PostScript files to my computer. You can also use serial communications with a PostScript device to cause it to render all kinds of nice patterns. - Chris
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [Fontforge-users] importing font from PDF crashes FF
TrueType and OpenType fonts already have embedding bits and tables/fields for including licence, trademark, copyright, designers url, etc. in the font file. Trouble is the fonts embedded in PDF files - especially if they were originally TT or OT - are *not* the same as the original font file. Most or all of this information, which may have been in the original font file, is probably no longer there in the PDF embedded font. Fonts in PDF files are essentially like the fonts in a document sent to to a PostScript printer. (BTW with a terminal emulator, serial communications with the printer, and a few simple commands you can also "extract" fonts from a PostScript printer). Unicode fonts may get split into a number of smaller fonts and all OpenType tables etc. are gone. - Chris Gustavo Ferreira wrote: Op Nov 12, 2008, om 12:18 AM heeft George Williams het volgende geschreven: On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 11:21, Gustavo Ferreira wrote: does fontforge do any kind of checking before importing a font from a pdf? No, because there is generally no such information available. In fact it isn't clear to me that any font format contains this information -- until FontLab's EEULA table gets fleshed out. do you mean that there is no bit related to the particular situation of importing a font from a pdf? or that the bits are not readable from a font contained inside a pdf? regarding the eeula table -- i think i remember you suggesting once that it is possible to add any new tables to an (opentype? truetype?) font. (sorry, i don't remember the context of that discussion.) what would be necessary to have an eeula table implemented in fontforge? do you have any remarks in relation to the proposal presented on the eeulaa.org website? would it be reasonable to ask that the "open font from pdf" function imports only fonts with the proper permissions, and fails to do so when it is not permitted by the font? :-) If you know how to do this, feel free. hmm. this is c code? if you can do it, i can make you some nice icons... ;-) cheers, - gustavo.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Open Font License submitted to OSI
In fact OFL is not open source license. This is not essential for fonts edited in whole in e.g. Fontlab and this license was proposed by such the developers. Indeed in this case the fonts in ttf or otf format has little differences with sources. So the developers distribute fonts in final format only. But some substantial parts of fonts could be programmed with scripts or external programs (opentype features, instructions etc.) For example expenses on the programming instructions in xgridfit are larger by an order than designing the font contours. And not releasing the sources makes the font almost unusable for other developers which will want to modify it. It would be like distributing programs in binary-only form without their sources. -- Andrey V. Panov http://canopus.iacp.dvo.ru/~panov/
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Adobe Font licenses
2008/11/11 Karl Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >What about Helvetica? It seems irrelevant to me since URW Nimbus Sans is a free software implementation of that typeface.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Adobe Font licenses
What about Helvetica? In what file did you find this license notice? Do you have a url? the "without fee" may mean it can't be used in commercial fonts? Or does it just mean Adobe / DEC won't charge you a fee? So far the responses have focused on the first interpretation (which would clearly make it nonfree), but in my experience in discussions with Adobe and others the second interpretation is definitely the one intended. The other unfortunate problem is that it does not explicitly give permission to distribute modified copies. Permission to distribute, yes, permission to modify, yes,but not necessarily both together -- this precise point has been at issue before. karl
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Adobe Font licenses
btw, "larger software package"... If fonts are software, does that mean that since we added glyphs to Vera in DejaVu that it would be valid to sell DejaVu by itself? FWIW, I concur with the other "no" opinions here -- add hello,world instead. karl
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] GPL fonts! (Was: Open Font Library submissions)
So, I think as policy we should accept all FSF-free licenses, but have a moderation queue for anything other than PD, OFL and GPL-as-we-prefer. That would channel people into best practices without limiting the range of fonts in the library or nannying. Agreed. Thanks, karl
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] GPL fonts! (Was: Open Font Library submissions)
2008/11/10 Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 à 17:31 +, Dave Crossland a écrit : > >> So I think it would be fine for a font to say in its metadata, > > Unfortunately, in the actual world, that does not work for fonts. I > don't know if it's because no one reads the font metadata and reminds > font authors to correct it, or some other reason, but what we find out > when we package fonts is that font metadata is wildly inaccurate and > unreliable. Here's the thing; if someone send me a random little Free TTF, I want just as much rights as if I got the DejaVu ZIP bundle. *Probably* if I get such a TTF, I'll go fetch the ZIP from the TTF's homepage via a search engine, but maybe I'm offline or something, and can't check. Casually redistributing font files "naked" is quite common, I think. Something the "GPL+OFLB" licensing should try to deal with, I think. > I think Ascender made a study that said non-foundry fonts were broken > because of this. That study was EOT propaganda, nothing more. IMO :) > bad font metadata is very common. Apart from copyright and licence notices, its all amenable to change though, right?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] GPL fonts! (Was: Open Font Library submissions)
> It is possible a font designer would *choose* to license under GPL > without font exception. Not that I know of any actual examples, it's > always just been ignorance, but it's conceivable. Conceivable yes, desirable for end-users, IMHO I don't think so... I imagine the user choosing such a font via the font menu say in a text editing environment, typing away, then printing to PDF. => technically his content is then licensed under the GPL, he would not make a conscious choice about that so it's really less-than-ideal. I think he would find it hard to satisfy the requirements of the GPL when distributing his document. That's another practical problem. And this somewhat reminds me of the controversy which lead to the creation of the GPL Bison exception. If an author chooses to release rights on a content he has produced to give it maximal audience and to keep it from getting locked away (which I highly recommend BTW), let him pick the appropriate content license. > the largest collection I know of are the URW fonts that are > distributed as part of Ghostscript, which predate the "font > exception." > > A form of the GPL font exception appears in the PFB's of most of the URW > font packages I have seen, although whether it was legally added, I > don't know. Aladdin and URW don't answer on these topics, in my > experience :(. > > karl -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] GPL fonts! (Was: Open Font Library submissions)
2008/11/10 Karl Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >I think requiring the font exception would be ideal - ie, removing the >2nd category above. > > FWIW, I don't agree. I liked your earlier conception much better: if > it's under a free software license, it can be in OFLB. For one thing, > it makes for a much simpler decision process than "we accept free > licenses a, b, c, but not d, e, and f". What basis is there to exclude > some? I'm kinda neutral on this issue; as Nicolas Spalinger just said on ##font IRC, 19:07 < yosch> if you put yourself in the shoes of a end-user, you choose something in the font menu type away, print to pdf and Pff your content is licensed under a software license but then again, my libertarian streak says, well, as long as we signpost the dangers of such fonts, it would be okay to host such fonts. So, I think as policy we should accept all FSF-free licenses, but have a moderation queue for anything other than PD, OFL and GPL-as-we-prefer. That would channel people into best practices without limiting the range of fonts in the library or nannying. > It is possible a font designer would *choose* to license under GPL > without font exception. Not that I know of any actual examples, it's > always just been ignorance, but it's conceivable. Yes. The GPLv3 says on its first line it is "for software and other kinds of works." And there are plenty of free culture advocates who say GPL is suitable for FAIF cultural works, like software manuals, because strong copyleft is missing from almost all other common free culture licenses. I think the FDL is a strong copyleft license, but now that v1.3 is CC-BY-SA compatible, I'm not so sure. >the largest collection I know of are the URW fonts that are >distributed as part of Ghostscript, which predate the "font >exception." > > A form of the GPL font exception appears in the PFB's of most of the URW > font packages I have seen, although whether it was legally added, I > don't know. Okay. I'm willing to trust Aladdin if they added it. Depends how much we can tell about when it was added Hmm... > Aladdin and URW don't answer on these topics, in my > experience :(. We'll see if the GUST team have any luck. -- Regards, Dave "Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software." - Bill Gates, 1976, in want of www.gnuherds.org
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] GPL fonts! (Was: Open Font Library submissions)
2008/11/11 Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Okay, I actually just ended up hacking up the whole thing. Here's a > breakdown of my reasoning Er, oops. I'll finish this part of the email now :) >> This file is part of and is for . > > I'm not sure about the usage suggestion, and I think using <> is > error-prone because lots of text processing systems don't display, or > even delete, stuff that appears to be HTML tags to stop spam. So using > programmers $ prefix with underscores for spaces seems better to me. > Of course, type designers won't easily understand either <> or $_ so a > "mickey mouse" version should also be available. I've appended both. Also, the name should refer to the font FAMILY name, right? >> Copyright (c) , (), >> with Reserved Font Name . dates -> comma separated list of years Note sure about the | delimited, as its "OR" symbol - just a space is better as its more simple and will encourage both kinds of contact information. >> Copyright (c) , (), >> with Reserved Font Name . >> Copyright (c) , (). This line misses an RFN. If there is no RFN, it should be explicit, I think. >> This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, I think its good to quickly say what is permitted, like the GPL copyright boilerplate does. >> Version 1.1. I'm okay that SIL says they don't want "or any later version" in the license itself, like FSF don't, and like CC does. But the FSF recommends it without requiring it, and I think that is better, because it is a problem when a new version is released and original copyright holders are uncontactable. So I'd like the OFLB to recommend it. >> You should have received a copy of the license along with this Font Software >> either in stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or in the >> appropriate >> machine-readable metadata fields within text or binary files. "human-readable headers" doesn't make sense to me. I think "Font Software" is better than "text or binary files" >> If this is not the case, go to http://scripts.sil.org/OFL for all >> the details including a FAQ. Fine >> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT >> ANY >> WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS >> FOR A >> PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the SIL Open Font License for more details. Should go nearer the copyright notice, I think > If this is not the case, > please visit the Open Font License website at > http://scripts.sil.org/OFL to obtain a copy. Many other details about > the license are available, including a FAQ. I'd change my last sentence to: Many other details about the license are available from this website, including a FAQ.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] GPL fonts! (Was: Open Font Library submissions)
2008/11/11 Nicolas Spalinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [...] > >> So I think it would be fine for a font to say in its metadata, >> >> "Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, George Bush Jr. This >> font is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under >> the terms of the Open Font License as published by SIL; either version >> 1.1 of the License available from http://ofl11.url, or (at your >> option) any later version. See the Open Font License for more >> details." > > Ha ha ha! Well... if these people opt for a radical career change and > start making open fonts for the benefit of humanity (or creative fun > when retired) then I'd recommend they also follow the recommended > template (yes they can) lol > with split copyright notices, reserved names > lines and links to license and FAQ that the OFL provides in its header. > There is also a richer header template for separate source files on > http://oflb.open-fonts.org/OFL-1.1-header.txt Yes, I hadn't looked through all the resources at oflb.open-fonts.org properly yet, and having a recommended template is a great idea :-) "human-readable headers" doesn't mean anything to me, and I would have thought it was some obscure jargon for "machine-readable metadata fields"... When you say "the OFL provides in its header" do you mean, more precisely, "the OFL provides in its preamble"? Okay, I actually just ended up hacking up the whole thing. Here's a breakdown of my reasoning > This file is part of and is for . I'm not sure about the usage suggestion, and I think using <> is error-prone because lots of text processing systems don't display, or even delete, stuff that appears to be HTML tags to stop spam. So using programmers $ prefix with underscores for spaces seems better to me. Of course, type designers won't easily understand either <> or $_ so a "mickey mouse" version should also be available. I've appended both. > Copyright (c) , (), > with Reserved Font Name . > Copyright (c) , (), > with Reserved Font Name . > Copyright (c) , (). > > This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. > You should have received a copy of the license along with this Font Software > either in stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or in the appropriate > machine-readable metadata fields within text or binary files. > > If this is not the case, go to http://scripts.sil.org/OFL for all > the details including a FAQ. > > This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT > ANY > WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR > A > PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the SIL Open Font License for more details. -- 8< -- This file is part of the $current_name_of_font_family font family Copyright (c) $comma_separated_list_of_years, $name_of_original_copyright_holder ($email_address $homepage), with Reserved Font Name $original_font_name Copyright (c) $comma_separated_list_of_years, $name_of_second_copyright_holder ($email_address $homepage), without a Reserved Font Name restriction Copyright (c) $comma_separated_list_of_years, $your_name ($email_address $homepage), with Reserved Font Name $current_name_of_font_family This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This Font Software is free (libre) and open source software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the "Open Font License" as published by SIL; either version 1.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. You should have received a copy of the license along with this Font Software - either as a stand-alone text file, or as machine-readable metadata within the Font Software itself. If this is not the case, please visit the Open Font License website at http://scripts.sil.org/OFL to obtain a copy. Many other details about the license are available, including a FAQ. -- 8< -- This file is part of the "Current Font Name" font family Copyright (c) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, Mr Original Copyright-Holder ([EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.allmyfonts.com), with Reserved Font Name "Original Font Name" Copyright (c) 2007, 2008, Acme Corporation ([EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.acme.com), without a Reserved Font Name restriction Copyright (c) 2008, Ms Your Name ([EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepages.isp.net/yourname/), with Reserved Font Name "Current Font Name" This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This Font Software is free (libre) and open source software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the "Open Font License" as published by SIL; either version 1.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. You should have received a copy of the license along with this Font Software -
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] GPL fonts! (Was: Open Font Library submissions)
[...] > So I think it would be fine for a font to say in its metadata, > > "Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, George Bush Jr. This > font is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under > the terms of the Open Font License as published by SIL; either version > 1.1 of the License available from http://ofl11.url, or (at your > option) any later version. See the Open Font License for more > details." Ha ha ha! Well... if these people opt for a radical career change and start making open fonts for the benefit of humanity (or creative fun when retired) then I'd recommend they also follow the recommended template (yes they can) with split copyright notices, reserved names lines and links to license and FAQ that the OFL provides in its header. There is also a richer header template for separate source files on http://oflb.open-fonts.org/OFL-1.1-header.txt >> Countless fonts make incomplete of plain false licensing statements in >> their metadata (Google Droid is just the last high-visibility example). > > Then we should contact the authors and remind them to take care of the > metadata too. Exactly. >> I'll take a detached license file and a versionned archive any day in >> the stead of their metadata equivallents. One can be trusted the other — >> not. > > By providing authors with a way to upload ZIP archives - and perhaps > in the future a way to automatically generate ZIP archives with such > detatched licenses if they aren't already included - I think the OFLB > should support this. +1 Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Open Font License submitted to OSI
Dave Crossland wrote: > Hi, > > Nicolas Spalinger pointed out https://ideas.opensource.org/ticket/164 > and I thought this might be of interest to the list :-) To give you some context let me say that SIL - as the steward of the OFL for the community at large - had it on the backburner for too long to submit to OSI to get them to validate the OSD (Open Source Definition) compliance. We focused on the definition and not on the supporting initiative... but we interacted directly with Bruce Perens: the original author of the DFSG and what became the OSD later. The DFSG compliance of the OFL has been recognized by Debian and with the recent clarified policy changes and the decision to fight licensing proliferation, the OSI has regained some relevance... Michael Tiemman recently got in touch with us about the need to recommend a good OSI-recognized font license to entities like the authors of the IPA fonts and so to reduce licensing proliferation. So the approval process is underway and we're fairly confident they will recognize that the OFL is already well-established throughout the community: with the distros and their fonts team, with FLOSS font designers and the font design toolkit, and with major community figures via the Go for OFL campaign: http://www.unifont.org/go_for_ofl/ If you know of designers or organisations who wouldn't want to use the OFL because it is not yet OSI-certified, just a little more patience... > Cheers, > Dave Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[OpenFontLibrary] Open Font License submitted to OSI
Hi, Nicolas Spalinger pointed out https://ideas.opensource.org/ticket/164 and I thought this might be of interest to the list :-) Cheers, Dave
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Adobe Font licenses
Ben Laenen wrote: > On Tuesday 11 November 2008, H wrote: >> There is no issue for selling a modified thing under CC BY-SA. Only >> in CC BY-NC-SA, there we have to ask the owner about it. Its hence >> not something like CC BY-SA. The term 'without fees' - i believe that >> the license allows only redistribution for free of cost, even with >> modifications. Other than that all, it looks like the DeJaVu >> license.[1] > > With DejaVu you can sell it as part of a "larger" software package (just > like the OFL), whereas this license doesn't seem to allow that. > > btw, "larger software package"... If fonts are software, does that mean > that since we added glyphs to Vera in DejaVu that it would be valid to > sell DejaVu by itself? That would be a big stretch of the intended definition. There is still a difference between adding to / merging elements with an existing font and bundling that font with software like a word processor. Something like the difference between "derived work" and "mere aggregation". This Adobe font license is project and organisation-specific and, although it has some good elements, it still carries grey areas in need of clarification like the resellability of the font or the status of derivatives. It has provisions to protect the reputation and name of the supporting organisations but nothing very clear about not reusing the name of the font itself when modifying/branching. Nothing to prevent name collisions and user confusion. (besides something about a trademark grant with images of the file ??). And of course the licensing proliferation problem... BTW, some people at Adobe reviewed the OFL and found the model good... (look for Thomas Phinney's answer on ttp://www.typophile.com/node/16620) AFAICT if they considered it for Utopia. They may consider it for some other projects. > Greetings > Ben Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Adobe Font licenses
2008/11/11 Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > btw, "larger software package"... If fonts are software, does that mean > that since we added glyphs to Vera in DejaVu that it would be valid to > sell DejaVu by itself? lol I think you should always expand "fonts" to "font software." So no.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Adobe Font licenses
2008/11/11 Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tuesday 11 November 2008, H wrote: > > There is no issue for selling a modified thing under CC BY-SA. Only > > in CC BY-NC-SA, there we have to ask the owner about it. Its hence > > not something like CC BY-SA. The term 'without fees' - i believe that > > the license allows only redistribution for free of cost, even with > > modifications. Other than that all, it looks like the DeJaVu > > license.[1] > > With DejaVu you can sell it as part of a "larger" software package (just > like the OFL), whereas this license doesn't seem to allow that. > Yes, there is certain similarities with both. And none with adobe's and that of CC. Thats what I meant. > > btw, "larger software package"... If fonts are software, does that mean > that since we added glyphs to Vera in DejaVu that it would be valid to > sell DejaVu by itself? > it says so, i think (i cant look the license now, sorry net is on certain troubles) that when some modifications are done - give it to some one, but not in the name of DeJaVu/Bitstream. > > Greetings > Ben > -- H IRC : HFactor | Phone : 09496346709 | PGP : 4634C034 | W : http://hiran.in Bob Hope - "I love to go to Washington - if only to be near my money."
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Adobe Font licenses
On Tuesday 11 November 2008, H wrote: > There is no issue for selling a modified thing under CC BY-SA. Only > in CC BY-NC-SA, there we have to ask the owner about it. Its hence > not something like CC BY-SA. The term 'without fees' - i believe that > the license allows only redistribution for free of cost, even with > modifications. Other than that all, it looks like the DeJaVu > license.[1] With DejaVu you can sell it as part of a "larger" software package (just like the OFL), whereas this license doesn't seem to allow that. btw, "larger software package"... If fonts are software, does that mean that since we added glyphs to Vera in DejaVu that it would be valid to sell DejaVu by itself? Greetings Ben
