[OpenFontLibrary] Should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses?

[Nicolas Spalinger]

Karl Berry wrote:
>     - we want to reduce licensing proliferation 
> 
> I completely agree.  However, I don't see the vote as saying "we will
> blindly accept any random upload whose license is on license-list.html".
> Dave said "via moderation".  I took that to mean the moderators will try
> to convince such an uploader using a random license to use one of the
> preferred ones.

OK. So we would still establish some kind of preferred licenses set? And
then contact upstream uploaders who want something else to ask them to
think about the following issues more thoroughly and see if their choice
of license is still what they really want:
    * use, study, modification, redistribution (the 4 core freedoms)
    * bundling
    * embedding and its interaction with possible strong or weak
copyleft requirements
    * derivative outlines and artwork status
    * derivative fonts status
    * artistic integrity
    * anti-name collision
    * name protection
    * reputation protection for authors
    * preventing stand-alone reselling within huge collections
    * more descriptive changes of modifications
    * clarity and readability for designers
    * awareness of the software nature of fonts
    * the multiplicity of font source formats, some open and
human-readable and some opaque/binary
    * good integration with the font design toolkit
    * legal solidity through wide expert and community review
    * metadata integration
    * cultural appropriateness to both the type design and FLOSS communities
    * stable trustworthy working model with a non-profit as the steward
of the license
    * being reusable and not project and .org-specific
    * allowing linking in a web context

Dave, Alex, Jon, and others, what do you think?

So, I do realize I'm biaised (!), but the whole reason for us embarking
on the OFL design and community review was that in light of these
important criteria existing models were found inappropriate... I'm
trying to put myself into the shoes of designers and end-users and I
think their trust and engagement is linked to a model catering to these
criteria. I doubt they want to read through and grasp the particular
working model of 10 or more different licenses to work out how it fits
their needs now and more importantly what the future will look like
after they've chosen one.

> The question is, do we want to completely reject an upload which
> knowingly uses a different (known) free license?  IMHO, no.

I think I understand your point but I fear we'd be creating lots of
problems and requirements that would be hard to satisfy for the users of
the library and for designers wanting to branch/reuse. There's also the
issue of manpower and time to handle the moderation... IHMO much easier
with a smaller set of licenses.

Also I don't think OFLB will host all the libre fonts in the entire
world either... Always harder to be everything to everyone...

> On the other hand, in the name of license de-proliferation, I would
> favor rejecting any upload which uses a custom license *not* listed on
> license-list.html.

I agree. That would already rule out a number of fonts licenses out there.

>     - OFL
> 
> Ack.
> 
>     - MIT/X11/Expat (much better than PD)
> 
> As long as we're being dogmatic, I think we should recommend Expat and
> not mention MIT, X11, modified BSD, ISC, etc., etc.  Expat is the only
> one of that family which has an unambiguous name and meaning.  (Again,
> that does not actively rejecting a font using mBSD.)

Good points to consider. Thanks for pointing that out.

>     - GPLv3 + reworked font exception
> 
> I see no problem with GPLv2+exception.
> 
> And there is no "reworked font exception" to my knowledge, so I don't
> know what you're referring to there.

Sorry for being unclear. I was referring to ideas and private drafts of
an updated exception which Dave and I discussed via email. The goal was
to express some OFL-inspired clarifications and features into a GPL
exception. I made suggestions and AFAIK Dave is on the case as part of
his research. But OTOH maybe something like a separate FGPL (fonts GPL)
should be created...

> karl


-- 
Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
http://planet.open-fonts.org


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/attachments/20081115/b846b124/attachment.pgp