On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 20:34:25 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > if that is the path forward, let us begin
so to begin that debate, i need only to quote my previous message > gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-free and add that, now jason concurs: its words, however confusing, make it non-free > ruben suggested that the wording is confusing, and that GNU has previously > established a precedent, which accepts a license with the same confusing > requirement, and so it should be acceptable OTOH, the rationale for accepting the OFL license makes perfect sense to me also - the 'bass' license does appear to afford that same interpretation - i would not hesitate to change my vote to "yay", if that is the only way to prevent this matter from remaining resolved for years to come (and by "resolved", i mean decided _and_ duly treated in all FSDG distros, which could be painful if those OFL fonts are under scrutiny, or simply never done) so again: > how shall we resolve this? if this were only an FSDG concern (no changes would need to made to the GNU licenses list), we could resolve it by consensus on this list (currently: "get rid of 'bass'" has favor) - but if the "nays" have it, then we _must_ revisit the SIL OFL decision and probably overturn it, demoting its status on the GNU licenses list, and opening a can of worms where we need to ask all of the distros to remove them, however painful removing them is likely to be - we have not a good track record of convincing distros to follow the work-group's recommendations; so i am not enthusiastic about going down that long and arduous path in any case, AFAIK the status of the SIL OFL would be a decision which only RMS can make, and that discussion, if any is necessary, probably belongs on a different mailing list - after that is decided, the unenviable task of convincing distros to purge those fonts from the system, would fall back upon us so, how do we proceed? - have we hit a brick wall on this already? - are there any more opinions or votes for "yay"?
