Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs
or misfeatures in the font?
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
On Jan 30, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
You do, of course, mean preserve _incorrect_ rendering of documents ;-)
Yes.
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Jan 30, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
You do, of course, mean preserve _incorrect_ rendering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs
or misfeatures in the font?
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To
[snip]
On the matter of freeness of software licensed under the OFL:
3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is
granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction applies to all
references stored in
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:00:04 +0100 Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Users who install derivatives (Modified Versions) on their systems
should not see any of the original names (Reserved Font Names) in
their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams,
documents that refer to a particular
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 [...]
Sorry about that small design problem, we'll be fixing that bit of the
..css soon.
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit on why you think the verbatim copy only is
problematic?
It renders the license text non-free.
The classic use case is the following: If at some point new people at SIL
want to make a revised version of the license, it will be technically
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
* Nicolas Spalinger:
Hi folks,
Please tell us what you think of the Open Font License.
All the details are available at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
| 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in
|Standard or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
This
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 really not
nice to make it
Scripsit Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in
|Standard or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
This clause is not quite DFSG-free, but it is so easy to work around
it so that it's probably not a real issue.
In
posted mailed
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Hi folks,
Please tell us what you think of the Open Font License.
All the details are available at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
This page includes a FAQ and other docs explaining the rationale behind
the license, what we want to achieve by
Hi folks,
Please tell us what you think of the Open Font License.
All the details are available at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
This page includes a FAQ and other docs explaining the rationale behind the
license, what we want to achieve by freeing up our fonts and contributing them
to the free
16 matches
Mail list logo
