Noto unified font
verdy_p at wanadoo.fr
Sat Oct 8 23:37:24 CDT 2016
The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also explicitly
allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
It is not directly compatible with the GPL in a composite product, but with
LGPL there's no problem, and there's no problem if the font is clearly
separable and distributed along with its licence, even if the software
coming with it or the package containing it is commercial: you are allowed
to detach it from the package and redistribute.
Really you are challenging the licence for unfair reasons
May be you just think that the GPL or MIT licences are enough.
Or you'd like the Public Domain (which in fact offers no protection and no
long term warranty as it is reappropriatable at any time by proprietary
licences, even retrospectively, we see everyday companies registering
properties on pseudo-new technologies that are in fact inherited from the
past and are used since centuries or more by the whole humanity, they leave
some space only for today's current usages in limtied scopes, but protect
everything else by inventing some strange concepts around the basic
feature, with unfair claims and then want to collect taxes). Also an
international public domain does not exist at all (it is always restricted
by new additions to the copyright laws). Publishing somethingf in the
Public domain is really unsafe.
2016-10-09 5:35 GMT+02:00 Harshula <harshula at hj.id.au>:
> 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):
> >> Which alternate license would you recommend?
> > MIT license or LGPL seem reasonable and common among free fonts. Some
> > choose GPL, but AFAIK it's unclear how the LGPL vs GPL differences apply
> > fonts.
> Interestingly, Noto project saw advantages of OFL and moved to using it,
> not too long ago:
> 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
> >> of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want
> >> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode