[OpenFontLibrary] Expat License

[Nicolas Spalinger]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Personally, I used to think OFL everywhere would be the future, but I've
> come to realise its non-copyleft orientation and all its
> renaming/fontlog requirements would never make it acceptable for a large
> number of the font projects I follow.

Let me point out that the Reserved Font Names are not mandatory (only
highly recommended): you can use the OFL and not reserve any names. (up
to you to handle the consecutive chaos but that's another story). And
the FONTLOG is recommended but not a requirement.

I don't see why you'd think that being more descriptive about your font
design process and crediting various contributors (with something like a
FONTLOG) would be seen as a bad thing by people with a FLOSS culture...
Rather the opposite I'd say. George Williams has added a FONTLOG-like
field in the sfd format for example. I suspect we'll even go futher down
this route with more DVCS usage with commit logs by designers.

As for the weak copyleft, it's a design feature. But we recommend as
much extended sources as possible. I'm pretty sure you are aware that
many FLOSS folks recognize the value of that model and even non-copyleft
licenses.

> In other words the OFL bent backwards too much to please some font
> designers and would never be recognized by free software folks as
> codifying their ideal (and free software folks are a major force when
> creating i18n fonts that cover scripts with little commercial appeal is
> needed).

There had to be a satisfactory nexus, a bridge between communities for
something to happen. Look at it this way: how many original font designs
have become part of distro archives since the OFL was community-reviewed
and published compared to the previous years? The majority of libre
fonts were maintainership of foundry donations. Thankfully this is now
changing. If both communities stayed on their side of the fence what
practical benefits would there have been for the end-user? Especially
the ones using complex but lesser-known scripts (sometime
yet-to-be-studied-and-drawn) as you rightly point out.
Various major free software community bodies have already recognized and
welcomed the OFL model.

> So if I had a stake in OFLB (and I haven't, I contributed zip to this
> particular project so far)

Well I'd say your work in packaging fonts uploaded to the library is
already extremely beneficial :-)

> I'd insist the OFLB recommended font
> shortlist to consist at least of
> – the OFL
> – GPL with font exception (reworked as cleanly as possible with the
> FSF), or LGPL

IMHO LGPL (2 & 3) is pretty hard to parse and understand in the context
of fonts...

> — a very permissive PD-like license (ie PD done right, an actual text
> granting various rights)

Something with attribution but all other rights granted.

> And as for some of those licenses not being well-known by typeface
> designers ⇒ this is part of OFLB evangelism role, and given the
> craptastic licenses I see everyday attached to web fonts it's much
> needed.
> 
> This would avoid future Droid/Liberation/STIX licensing hell
> repetitions.

Indeed, I totally agree. Recommending a limited set is beneficial for all.


-- 
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/20081116/01c2d075/attachment.pgp