I rather would stick with GPLv3, simply because more permissive license threatens freedom. For example, someone may take over my fonts, develop them further, and subsequently change their license to something commercial-only. It is what I want to avoid. Just something like stories known from MACOS X, initially Berkeley-licensed-software derivative, finally commercialized product. James Kass
--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Shawn Steele <[email protected]> wrote: From: Shawn Steele <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex script rendering support on Android) To: "James Kass" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 3, 2012, 5:04 PM GPL != “do what you want with them” J For example what Christoph pointed out. You may want to consider a more permissive license if “do what you want” is your intent. -Shawn (as myself) From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Kass Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:17 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex script rendering support on Android) License already included in SourceForge download, namely GPLv3. James Kass --- On Fri, 2/3/12, Luke-Jr <[email protected]> wrote: From: Luke-Jr <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex script rendering support on Android) To: [email protected] Cc: "James Kass" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 3, 2012, 3:09 PM On Friday, February 03, 2012 9:52:26 AM James Kass wrote: > All fonts are now of course freeware - simply do what you want with them > all. "Freeware" isn't afaik a legal term. Could you slap some kind of license on them? The CC0 or MIT licenses sound like what you might want: http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
