[OpenFontLibrary] Now their TTF names refer to Apache License

[Fontfreedom at aol.com]

>re:  
http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/base.git;a=tree;f=data/fonts;hb=HEAD  
>
>Google and Ascender have updated Droid fonts from Android  project,  
>http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/base.git;a=tree;f=data/f
onts;hb=HEAD  . 
>Now their TTF names refer to Apache License. So the fonts have become  
truely 
>freely distributable since version 1.00 build  112.
>
>-- 
>Andrey V.  Panov
>http://canopus.iacp.dvo.ru/~panov/


Apache License 2.0 is  an curious open source license; it's 
patent-crazed-left, but NOT  copyleft.
from:
_http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2.xml_ 
(http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2.xml) 
What  Does The Apache License v2 Do?
These bullets are intended to summarise what  is distinct about the Apache 
License v2. They are not intended as a full  description of its features. The 
Apache License v2:
1. explicitly grants  patent rights where necessary to operate the software 
2. permits code that  it covers to be subsumed into closed source projects

#1 is an  oversimplification, the license does much more than that, Apache 
2.0 works as if  it's involved in a sort of a multi-entity, complex patent arms 
race. GPL v3  has much the same effect on patent rights as Apache 2.0, but GPL 
v3 is of course  copyleft. 
 
From:
_http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html_ 
(http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html) 
A line from the Apache 2.0 license:
 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html)  
"If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a  
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a  Contribution 
incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory  patent 
infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License  for that 
Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is  filed."

This would all have an of course much larger (infectious) impact  if a font 
freely avalible under this license was in fact a  patented font. My worry is 
that if for example a printer vendor invents a new  print technique, say desktop 
nanotube plastic color printing, applies for  patents & embeds a freely 
avalible Apache License 2.0
font in their printers. They could end up losing the rights to their new  
printing technology.
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and 
favorite sites in one place.  Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)