[Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary

[Fontfreedom at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/3/2008 12:33:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
ed.trager at gmail.com writes:

>Hi,  FontFreedom,

> ... but I really want to have a non-copyleft
>  openfontlibrary.

>Why?

If we are not using "copyleft"  licenses, what are you proposing to use in 
place?
Copy - Center licenses, Such as:
 
The CC-BY License _http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/_ 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) 
The MIT/X11 License
Zope Public License (ZPL)

>The whole reason for copyright law is to provide legal  protections to
>authors of creative works, is it not?
>
>We  now have enthusiastic communities of authors who recognize the
>value of  giving back to the community, of sharing and remixing
>creative  works.  Licenses like SIL's OFL license for fonts have been
>designed  specifically to help these authors protect their works so
>that they can  do what they really want to do with them -- share them
>with the  community!


NO! SIL OFL does not allow them to share their fonts in a way which allows  
others to make modifications to a font, then re-release the font under the  
license of their own choosing.
 
>The right to share a work with others is just as much a legal right  as
>the right to not share a work.  The license makes this  clear.  And,
>BTW, the original author of a work is, at least under  U.S. law as I
>understand it, free to release his or her work under as  many or as few
>different licenses as s/he wants.  So, for example, I  could release an
>original font creation under OFL for the community to  use, and still
>sell it under a commercial license for customers who may  want some
>form of paid support or other service in return for  payment.
>
>So licenses like the OFL provide clarity in terms of  what authors want
>to allow or disallow.


Clarity, yes. A good idea, no.

>"Public Domain" on the other hand seems to me very fuzzy and  unclear.
>What legal rights are reserved or not reserved?  It's not  clear to me.
>What are the author's wishes?  Heck, who even *is* the  author of a
>"Public Domain" font?  Maybe if we knew who the author  or authors
>really are, we would find out that they don't want their fonts  under
>"Public Domain" once they recognize the advantages and  legal
>protections that copyright law is supposed to provide.  I  therefore
>personally think that "Public Domain" should be  discouraged.  I
>certainly would not put anything I created under  "Public Domain".  I
>would much rather put it under a license that  makes it very clear that
>I want to share my work with the  community.


CC-PD : Creative Commons - PD is a specific and unified way to dedicate  
works to the public domain.
It's what's been used with many fonts currently in the openfontlibrary.  Some 
people have said their (software,  font, clipart, whatever) is  public 
domain, then attached conditions which are totally incompatible with  dedicating 
something to the public domain. Most public domain works do include  
documentation of who the author(s) are. We should write extensively explaining  to people 
what it means to dedicate a font, or anything to the public domain. 

>- Ed Trager



**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel.  Check out Today's Hot 
5 Travel Deals! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/attachments/20081104/d3407c13/attachment.htm