Walter Landry wrote:
Nicolas Spalinger nicolas_spalin...@sil.org wrote:
Hi Walter,
There are obviously varying needs and preferences (prejudices?) along
the licensing spectrum but IMHO your reply is very reductive.
At the end of the day upstreams make up their own mind about how
Walter Landry wrote:
Nicolas Spalinger nicolas_spalin...@sil.org wrote:
Paul Wise wrote:
I'd strongly suggest to indicate a preference about which license you
would like them to choose.
I would personally suggest standard FLOSS licenses like BSD,
MIT/Expat, ISC, GPL + font exception etc
.
Looks like the following page on tug.org has more details:
http://www.tug.org/fonts/
Cheers,
--
Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary
http://planet.open-fonts.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
. Thanks! Let us know how it goes.
BTW the font exception for the GPL still has a bunch of unsolved
problems. I wouldn't recommend that.
Cheers,
--
Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary
http://planet.open-fonts.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
would also highly recommend they use these dedicated fields (description
and others) to mention the dedication.
HTH,
--
Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
Debian/Ubuntu font team / OpenFontLibrary
http://planet.open-fonts.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
and creating a collaborative
open font community which can improve fonts while not messing up user
documents.
BTW through the weekly font review we're working on tackling the
non-free fonts bugs in Debian:
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/
Cheers,
--
Nicolas Spalinger
http
,
--
Nicolas Spalinger
http://scripts.sil.org
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/
https://launchpad.net/people/fonts
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-dejavu_2.24-2/ttf-dejavu.copyright
It's been recognized to comply with the requirements of DFGS #1.
OTOH if teeworld is not font software, IMHO there are enough good
DFSG-validated licenses for pure software without the need for new ones.
HTH
--
Nicolas Spalinger
http://scripts.sil.org
http://pkg
/OFL#0b8d92bc for examples of such guidelines and
disclaimers.
--
Nicolas Spalinger
http://scripts.sil.org
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/
https://launchpad.net/people/fonts
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
://stalefries.googlepages.com/fontsbreip
Cheers,
--
Nicolas Spalinger
http://scripts.sil.org
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/
https://launchpad.net/people/fonts
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
a collaborative project.
--
Nicolas Spalinger
http://scripts.sil.org
http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-fonts/
https://launchpad.net/~fonts
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
MJ Ray wrote:
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Many other key reviewers [namedrops] explained that the name change
requirement is a desirable feature for fonts and that so-called
ready-to-eat derivatives are problematic. A branch is something
different by definition and it should identify itself
Christian Perrier wrote:
[...]
Quoting Nicolas Spalinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi everyone,
I think this will be of interest to the Debian maintainers on this list.
The Open Font License 1.1 is now released.
What do the debian-legal people think about it?
I have not followed
on designers to create a new
Debian-specific font from scratch and then release it under a good license.
--
Nicolas Spalinger
pkg-fonts Alioth project
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
expect features only another derivative or the Standard Version can
actually offer. (from OFL FAQ entry 2.8).
--
Nicolas Spalinger
http://scripts.sil.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
script :-D
1: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Nicolas Spalinger
http://scripts.sil.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Important side issue:
No modification of the license is permitted, only verbatim copy is
allowed.
Don't do this. Marking license texts as verbatim copy only is a bad habit
and I encourage people not to.
You want something more like the following:
The OFL license
MJ Ray wrote:
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All the details are available at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
The page is not very accessible because you set color without
a background-color (set both or preferably neither, please)
and you seem to be using 8pt body text (ow). It's
[snip]
We've got font debs ready to go.
Please use non-reserved font names, so that Debian is allowed to add
missing glyphs to the fonts.
Hi,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
The idea behind using reserved font names is to avoid conflicting
namespace between upstream and the
Dear All,
The Gentium font (http://scripts.sil.org/gentium) has been re-released
under the SIL Open Font License (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL).
This is excellent news as there are few free/open-source fonts that
cover the Latin, Cyrillic and Greek Unicode blocks, and special
characters/symbols.
(rms and
other key members of the community including Jim Gettys from GNOME
already told us OFL 1.0 was free)
I seriously don't think[0] so. The mentioned violation of the DFSG also
applies to the GNU Freedoms.
Regards,
Daniel
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00337.html
).
The dicussion continues and we're now looking for what -legal thinks.
We've got font debs ready to go.
Thank you,
--
Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
http://scripts.sil.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22 matches
Mail list logo
