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
Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
_______________________________________________
Openfontlibrary mailing list
Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
