Re: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex script rendering support on Android)

Open Font License added already to https://sourceforge.net/projects/code2000/ page. So Code2nnn is now dual-licensed.
James Kass

--- On Sat, 2/4/12, Szelp, A. Sz. <a.sz.szelp_at_gmail.com> wrote:

From: Szelp, A. Sz. <a.sz.szelp_at_gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex script rendering support on Android)
To: "James Kass" <jameskass_at_att.net>
Cc: unicode_at_unicode.org
Date: Saturday, February 4, 2012, 9:57 AM

Sorry, I was reading my mail threads according to time/date.  I see now that the same has been proposed on the other thread. I also see you preferring not to act due to private commitments and time constrains.

Sorry, again, for bringing this up unnecessarily.

All the best for your struggle, and keep it simple!

/Szabolcs

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:49, Szelp, A. Sz. <a.sz.szelp_at_gmail.com> wrote:

James,

you might want to review (at least) the OFL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIL_Open_Font_License, a license specifically created for fonts, created with freedoms in mind. In several respects it fits fonts much better than GPLv3.

/Sz

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 18:12, James Kass <jameskass_at_att.net> wrote:

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
Received on Sat Feb 04 2012 - 04:18:18 CST