Hi, Paul, Wouldn't it be better if you as the original author claimed the copyright on it, and put the kind of license on it that you would prefer (BSD or whatever)? Then a group could form a project around your font just the same, but now would be able to respect your wishes as regards licensing with no ambiguities or future contentions?
- Ed Trager On 2/10/07, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 10:28 +0800, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > > > MPH 2B Damase does not have a free and open-source license. I was > > wondering if the author would be flexible to relicense using a license > > such as OFL. > > There is no copyright, no licence, it is public domain. > > Therefore you can do anything you could with any free and open-source > licence, and more, including claim copyright over it and re-licence it > to the OFL if you so choose. > > I'd really suggest that a much more permissive licence (BSD/MIT/Expat) > is used if someone decides to claim copyright over it and or any changes > made and choose a licence. I think public domain is just as good a > "licence" as any free font licence. > > It was pointed out that one option would be to simply import the > glyphs/etc into another font (such as DejaVu) instead of keeping MPH 2B > Damase as a separate project/font. Obviously in such a situation the > glyphs/etc would be re-licenced to the same licence as the font they > were imported into. > > If you wish to verify that the font really is in the public domain and > that the author did not take the glyphs from some other source, please > read the debian Intent To Package bug[1] or contact the author (Mark). > > 1. http://bugs.debian.org/306290 > > -- > bye, > pabs > > http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise > > _______________________________________________ > Openfontlibrary mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary > > > _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
