* Sven Luther: >> Clearly non-free. >> >> I can understand why people think that such a clause is a technical >> necessity (reproducible layout), but it still violates DFSG clause 3. > > What about a clause mandating that the layout size or whatever it is called, > remains the same for existing fonts ?
I don't think the font people would accept this. We shouldn't, either. > But i think the easiest way out here is to allow modifications of fonts, but > forcing name change if there is modification of existing glyphs. Exactly, this is what Bitstream Vera's license requires. > BTW, i wonder why the vera bitstream licence could not be used as is by this > project, in order to avoid yet another licence, and probably cut down lawyer > fees. (That said, if you are discussing with the lawyer ...) Probably the same reason why Cisco's competitors don't use their free networking schematics. 8-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
