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

[Jon Phillips]

On Sat, 2008-11-15 at 21:38 +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> 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.

No moderation. We don't have time. If they don't read the text, and
don't comply then we have to decide if the upload is in compliance, or
violation...if violating, delete that sucka!

> 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?

Well, geez, that is a lot to think about. This is one of the reasons
OCAL went all PD. It gets totally confusing and defeats humans having
too many options.

Sorry, totally silent on this for a bit...I think we should offer PD,
OFLB and the other major way fonts are licensed (possibly)...although, I
see no reason to add anything else unless there is significant demand. I
would argue, finish the redesign, launch and merry xmas...oh, and have a
big sign towards bug tracker. If there is deman, then we can think about
adding it and/or if someone submits a patch.

> 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.

Totally!

> > 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...

Totally! if we have the best font library and strong rationale, then
hopefully others will consider the licenses we have chosen...and, lets
face it, font licenses don't make better fonts, people do! Plus, after a
2-3 options, the choices become pretty much the same.

> > 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.

totally would cause problems with allowing for combining multiple fonts,
and spread confusion...no good.

Jon

> >     - 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

I defer to you guys on taking these suggestions and making a clear
set...but, I would argue that it must be clear, and workable...also, how
do the licenses interoperate.

At the end of the day, power to those who commit code and file patches.

Jon

> 
-- 
Jon Phillips
San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing
GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884
CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624
jon at rejon.org
http://www.rejon.org
IM/skype: kidproto
Jabber: rejon at gristle.org
IRC: rejon at irc.freenode.net