[OpenFontLibrary] licence

[Dave Crossland]

2009/3/22 Robert Martinez <mail at mray.de>:
>
> I don't know if just removing "often" is enough. Then you say everything
> here is "free software". but there is also public domain stuff,

Public domain stuff is free.

> the complexety of mixing the "free software" definition with a clean statement
> what we offer on OFLB is a confusion imho.

The OFLB offers free-as-in-freedom fonts. Maybe
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition instead of the GNU definition?

> The GPL had to write an exception just for the font case - we ONLY deal with
> fonts and therefore should not use the "free software" or "GPL"  and
> describe the difference along, just to explain what exactly we offer.

IMO its a bit cloudy to call the GPL Font Exception an "exception";
really it is "extra permission for PDFs"

> I would like to see a clean list that says it all - like Dave
> said:"ofl+cc0+gplv3later+fe" (what is fe?)

(FE is Font Exception :-)

> and then maybe  add some text
> that explains how & why the list was formed the (strong idea about the
> freedom aspect just like the GNU project ect.)

Yes, totally :-)

> Concerning the loss of certain fonts i think i'm a hardliner here too.
> In this font jungle out there it is really wild. we should not adapt to the
> diversity, but focus on building a solid set of requirements. it should be a
> goal for font designers to make it work with libraries like ours - not the
> other way round.
>
> if we fail to bring more order to this licence chaos we miss a great
> opportunity to help lots of creative people in their day to day work.

I totally agree - we want the OFLB brand to delivery quality over quantity.

"Quality is quantity" - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stalin ;)