[OpenFontLibrary] Open Font License submitted to OSI

[Dave Crossland]

2008/11/12 Andrey V. Panov <panov at canopus.iacp.dvo.ru>:
>
> In fact OFL is not open source license.

Because it doesn't require complete corresponding sourcecode?

> This is not essential for fonts edited
> in whole in e.g. Fontlab and this license was proposed by such the developers.
> Indeed in this case the fonts in ttf or otf format has little differences with
> sources. So the developers distribute fonts in final format only.

Using a particular tool doesn't effect this. FontLab's VFB files ought
to be published like FF SFDs ought to be, especially when they contain
hinting stuff or OT features.

That FL is proprietary is a problem, but having proprietary source is
better than not having source. Who knows, maybe someone will write a
VFB2SFD converter one day.

> But some substantial parts of fonts could be programmed with scripts or external
> programs (opentype features, instructions etc.) For example expenses on the
> programming instructions in xgridfit are larger by an order than designing the
> font contours. And not releasing the sources makes the font almost unusable for
> other developers which will want to modify it. It would be like distributing
> programs in binary-only form without their sources.

Yes, this is why the GPL is a good font license for complex fonts -
but it has some minor problems that need fixing.

However, most fonts are not complex and don't have features or hinting
- they are simple "display" typefaces that only work well at 14pt or
larger. These are typically made by graphic designers who don't care
much about software freedom and about understanding the GPL. The OFL
is a good fit for these designers, and for those fonts - perhaps
because the OFL is available, we will get more free software fonts. A
good thing.

I wonder what happens if a community grows an OFL font to have complex
features though... then the OFL model may break down and necesarry
source may not be available. Personally, if it was me, I would have
tried to fix the problems with the GPL directly and not written the
OFL. But I think the OFL is okay, it serves a purpose, and I'm happy
working with those that support the OFL over the GPL.

But none of this suggests the OFL is "open source" - it certainly is
"free software" and since OS == FS, well... :-)

Best,
Dave