On 12/11/06 14:02, Nick Phillips wrote:
On 12/12/2006, at 10:50 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:43:57 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as
the original software is acceptable.
I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of
Reserved
Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the
license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction.
It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list
for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's
Terry Hancock wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 + MJ Ray wrote:
This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the
original software is acceptable.
I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved
Font Names goes beyond
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In summary, can we conclude that works solely released under the terms
of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their
Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the
work?
You two
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In summary, can we conclude that works solely released under the terms
of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their
Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the
work?
You two obviously do, but I keep disagreeing from this
Francesco Poli wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve
an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:38:07 + Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that
each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can
reserve an
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forbidding reuse of a the name of the original software is OK,
forbidding an arbitrary name is not.
Don't you agree with me that this goes beyond what is allowed
(again, as a compromise!) by DFSG#4 ?
Please don't ask questions in the negative.
I agree
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:21:21 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forbidding reuse of a the name of the original software is OK,
forbidding an arbitrary name is not.
Don't you agree with me that this goes beyond what is allowed
(again, as a compromise!) by
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve
an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:32:24 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that
each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder
Francesco Poli wrote:
I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names
can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the
Font Software.
Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my
concerns go away?
There is no such clause.
Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names
can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the
Font Software.
Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my
concerns go away?
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:21:19 + Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font
Names can only become such by being names used in some ancestor
version of the Font Software.
Could you please elaborate and show the
On 12/12/2006, at 10:50 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve
an arbitrary list of Font Names, the
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the
license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction.
It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list
for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's not a freeness issue,
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:11:11 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Is this kind of /cumulative/ name-change requirement allowed by
DFSG#4?
We need copyright permission for each contributing work, so I can't
see how we allow DFSG4 and not allow this.
Ah,
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:02:55 +0800 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Actually, DFSG#4 states, in part:
| The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
| version number from the original software.
This means that forbidding derived works to
Gervase Markham wrote:
But the names aren't required to be trademarked.
That sentence is nonsense in legal terms: there is no such thing as
trademarking a name. A name becomes a trademark when you use it as
one. Putting it in a list of reserved font names is one way of doing that.
I think you
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] Just because it's fun to argue, though [...]
I think it's extremely unfunny to have off-topic angels-on-pinhead debates
looping away. If anything on-topic comes out of this subthread, please
summarise it in a new subthread.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- 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
*
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006
[...]
1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components,
in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
This restriction does *not* fail the DFSG (because DFSG#1
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:36:18 + (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
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this
definitely disallows it.
Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new
font (and not much else beyond that). This is of course a bad thing, but
it can be said of virtually any
On 12/8/06, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this
definitely disallows it.
Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new
font (and not much else beyond that). This is of
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new
font (and not much else beyond that).
True.
The copyleft on the font doesn't bind the program for any use I can
imagine. Not because of the document exemption, but because of this:
can be
Does the new draft available at
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsiid=OFL_review_sc=1#db4033e4-5239a507
let software follow the DFSG?
There's some discussion at
http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000103.html
and
On 12/6/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
This license is copied below, and is also available with a FAQ at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
---
SIL OPEN FONT
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 + MJ Ray wrote:
Does the new draft available at
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsiid=OFL_review_sc=1#db4033e4-5239a507
let software follow the DFSG?
[...]
the licence itself says:
[...]
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 + MJ Ray wrote:
This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the
original software is acceptable.
I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved
Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free.
On 12/7/06, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this interfere with dual licensing?
Not following this. You can't dual license unless you are the copyright
holder, and then you always can (unless you are party to an exclusive
rights contract). Sounds like this is simply a (somewhat
32 matches
Mail list logo
