Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

2017-11-03 Thread Ian Jackson
Florian Weimer writes ("Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package"): > Ian Jackson: > > Debian is not likely to accept a restriction on modifying glyphs. We > > consider that Debian (and its downstreams and users) must be free to > >

Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

2017-11-03 Thread Florian Weimer
* Ian Jackson: > Debian is not likely to accept a restriction on modifying glyphs. We > consider that Debian (and its downstreams and users) must be free to > make changes - even changes that upstreams disapprove of. We have historically accepted restrictions like these: | The programs for

Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

2017-08-30 Thread Chris Simpkins
This is very helpful Ian and I really do appreciate your feedback.  I think that we are in agreement on our end that elimination of the reserved font name will be the best approach for all involved. This will likely come along with licensing of all changes that we have made to the upstream

Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

2017-08-17 Thread Chris Simpkins
We created a new thread for our license discussions for anyone who is interested in participating on the repository: https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/issues/271 One possibility for us would be to eliminate the dual license structure and simply revert to the Bitstream Vera license with

Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

2017-08-16 Thread Chris Simpkins
> I personally think that technical issues should not be worked around by imposing licensing restrictions. If typeface development tools need to be improved in order to get better QA, then I hope they can be enhanced from a *technical* point of view. In the meanwhile, licensing restrictions should

Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

2017-08-16 Thread Francesco Poli
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:40:00 -0400 Chris Simpkins wrote: > [...] Downstream open source project font licensing from the days > prior to SIL OFL (and to some degree even after that period) is a > bit of a quagmire. Hello, I agree that font licensing is a quagmire. Well, I even go further and

Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

2017-08-16 Thread Chris Simpkins
Thank you Jeff.  The Hack Open Font License was modeled on the Bitstream Vera license and SIL OFL.  Downstream open source project font licensing from the days prior to SIL OFL (and to some degree even after that period) is a bit of a quagmire. Item 2 is where the reserved font name

Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

2017-08-16 Thread Jeff Epler
Here is the text of the license found at > [2] https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md ## License Hack Copyright 2015, Christopher Simpkins with Reserved Font Name "Hack". Bitstream Vera Sans Mono Copyright 2003 Bitstream Inc. and licensed under the Bitstream Vera License

DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

2017-08-15 Thread Chris Simpkins
Our fonts (Hack - https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack) are currently released through the Debian package manager (package maintainer Paride Legovini) from our Github repository as binaries that are compiled + hinted by the project author team. As of our upcoming v3.0 release of the fonts, we