Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 4. You may also (a) add glyphs or characters to the Fonts, or > modify the shape of existing glyphs, so long as the base set of glyphs > is not removed and (b) delete glyphs or characters from the Fonts, > provided that the resulting font set is distributed with the following > disclaimer: "This [name] font does not include all the Unicode points > covered in the STIX Fonts-TM set but may include others." In each > case, the name used to denote the resulting font set shall not include > the term "STIX" or any similar term.
I'm confused by this, but maybe I just don't understand how the font works: is it possible to modify a character and have software use it, even if the original is still in there? Don't things get confused by two glyphs for the same character being in there? At best, it seems to mean that derived works have to carry around deadwood. At worst, this makes it impossible to use modifications. I also share the opinion of others that the naming restriction is too broad and should have no place in a copyright licence. That sort of name protection should be in a trademark licence. A better form of trademark note in the copyright licence would be something like "no permission is granted to use the STIX trademark to denote the resulting font set". Summary: Clause 4 seems to need fixing to meet DFSGs 3 and 4. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
