[OpenFontLibrary] Bruce Perens criticized SIL Open Font License

[MJ Ray]

Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre.prokoudine at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:50 AM, minombresbond wrote:
> > Warning: SIL Open Font License
> > http://perens.com/blog/2009/02/17/64/
>
> Can't tell until he bothers to actually explain the problem. So far he
> only managed to say how lousy creators of OFL were.

The page says "The SIL representative I communicated with [...]" so
SIL already know.  Is it good or not that he's not telling the world
how to break out of the OFL?

I think debian-legal contributors already pointed out at least
possible one escape route (the non-definition of "document").  I don't
know if that's what Bruce Perens spotted or if there's something more
subtle and powerful.

The main reaction from the SIL side to debian-legal's examination was
to degenerate into ad hominem attacks and ignore or deny almost every
point.  I'm not sure whether any change was made to OFL in reaction to
any comment from debian-legal.  For example, see the discussion
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/28307
(The ofl-discuss list archive doesn't respond to me - anyone know
where it went?)

It's reasonably easy for an experienced eye to tell that one can't
rely on SIL's accuracy.  The bogus claim "The OFL complies with the
Debian Free Software Guidelines" still appears on the SIL website: it
can't, by definition, because the DFSG apply to software - there is no
blanket approval for licences and you can even botch the GPL if you
try hard enough.

Software under OFL 1.1 can meet the DFSG, but the ability to convert
to public domain would actually help that!

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct