On 09/10/16 13:50, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote:
>> On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
>>> It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(
FSF appears to classify OFL as a Free license (though incompatible with
the GNU GPL & FDL):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Fonts
>> Which alternate license would you recommend?
>
> MIT license or LGPL seem reasonable and common among free fonts. Some also
> choose GPL, but AFAIK it's unclear how the LGPL vs GPL differences apply to
> fonts.
Interestingly, Noto project saw advantages of OFL and moved to using it,
not too long ago:
https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/blob/master/NEWS
It seems you disagree with FSF's interpretation of the OFL and bundling
Hello World as being sufficient. Are there other reasons for your
preference for MIT/LGPL/GPL over OFL?
> On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:16:37 AM you wrote:
>> That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and
>> of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone
>> else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort
>> into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the
>> moral rights of the developer.
Why are you attributing Shriramana Sharma's email to me? It might be
clearer if you replied to his email.
cya,
#
Received on Sat Oct 08 2016 - 23:13:43 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Oct 08 2016 - 23:13:43 CDT