[email protected] wrote: >On Monday, February 06, 2012 10:22:10 AM Julian Bradfield wrote: >> Anyway, the OFL has a bizarre quirk that says you're not allowed to >> sell OFL fonts by themselves. You have to bundle some random program >> or non-OFL font with them. Since you can charge whatever you like for >> a GPL3 program, this requirement is rather easily satisfied, even if >> you can't be bothered to write your own Hello World! program.
>That doesn't change the principle of the matter. I also highly doubt a judge >would see that as anything other than trying to get off on a technicality, and >enforce the spirit of the agreement if you were clearly trying to sell the >font. I'm not sure this list is really a good place for pointless arguments about the meaning of "free". Some people don't consider the freedom to make money from other people's work to be a necessary part of "free software". On the other hand, some people don't consider the GPL restrictions to be "free". What matters is what you want to achieve, not what you call it. If you won't install software unless you can pay money for it, that's your problem! I don't agree with you about the judge. In fact, I think a court would find the licence so badly drafted and full of holes as to be effectively unenforceable in that provision - it's so badly drafted that one can't even tell what the intent is. -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
