[OpenFontLibrary] GPL fonts! (Was: Open Font Library submissions)

[Dave Crossland]

2008/11/11 Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com>:
>
> Okay, I actually just ended up hacking up the whole thing. Here's a
> breakdown of my reasoning

Er, oops. I'll finish this part of the email now :)

>> This file is part of <nameoffont> and is for <description>.
>
> I'm not sure about the usage suggestion, and I think using <> is
> error-prone because lots of text processing systems don't display, or
> even delete, stuff that appears to be HTML tags to stop spam. So using
> programmers $ prefix with underscores for spaces seems better to me.
> Of course, type designers won't easily understand either <> or $_ so a
> "mickey mouse" version should also be available. I've appended both.

Also, the name should refer to the font FAMILY name, right?

>> Copyright (c) <dates>, <Copyright Holder> (<URL|email>),
>> with Reserved Font Name <Reserved Font Name>.

dates -> comma separated list of years

Note sure about the | delimited, as its "OR" symbol - just a space is
better as its more simple and will encourage both kinds of contact
information.

>> Copyright (c) <dates>, <additional Copyright Holder> (<URL|email>),
>> with Reserved Font Name <additional Reserved Font Name>.
>> Copyright (c) <dates>, <additional Copyright Holder> (<URL|email>).

This line misses an RFN. If there is no RFN, it should be explicit, I think.

>> This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License,

I think its good to quickly say what is permitted, like the GPL
copyright boilerplate does.

>> Version 1.1.

I'm okay that SIL says they don't want "or any later version" in the
license itself, like FSF don't, and like CC does.

But the FSF recommends it without requiring it, and I think that is
better, because it is a problem when a new version is released and
original copyright holders are uncontactable. So I'd like the OFLB to
recommend it.

>> You should have received a copy of the license along with this Font Software
>> either in stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or in the appropriate
>> machine-readable metadata fields within text or binary files.

"human-readable headers" doesn't make sense to me. I think "Font
Software" is better than "text or binary files"

>> If this is not the case, go to http://scripts.sil.org/OFL for all
>> the details including a FAQ.

Fine

>> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY
>> WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
>>  PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the SIL Open Font License for more details.

Should go nearer the copyright notice, I think

> If this is not the case,
> please visit the Open Font License website at
> http://scripts.sil.org/OFL to obtain a copy. Many other details about
> the license are available, including a FAQ.

I'd change my last sentence to:

Many other details about the license are available from this website,
including a FAQ.