Generally, product names are not relevant to software freedom. As long as they don't serve some functional purpose.
Free software licenses do not include trademark licenses, and very few bring them up. I guess the BSD with advertising clause is kind of like that? But not quite the same. Regards, Daniel J. Hakimi B.S. Philosophy, RPI 2012 B.S. Computer Science, RPI 2012 J.D. Cardozo Law 2015 On Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 04:41 Sune Vuorela <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2026-01-29, Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm looking at the BenchNine font, because some upstream documentation > > that I'm packaging uses this font. Unfortunately, it appears that its > > license may be non-DFSG due to this: > > > > No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font > > Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the > > corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the > > primary font name as presented to the users. > > https://fonts.google.com/specimen/BenchNine/license > > > > I understand how this is arguably important for the end-user experience > > of fonts as well as what might be called integrity of design principles > > which affect potentially affect the author's reputation. That said, it > > feels non-DFSGish. What do you think? > > It feels explicitly DFSGish due to DFSG #4 > "The license may require derived works to carry a different name or > version number from the original software." > > > Can we clarify our position on this (somewhere) please? > > I think it is already quite clear. > > /Sune > >
