[OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper

[MJ Ray]

Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com>
> On 23 May 2013 07:46, Denis Jacquerye <moyogo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > With some free software you have the freedom to sell it, to
> 
> Generally FOSS means freedom to sell it for any purpose. That the OFL
> restricts selling and that the FSF and OSI have approved it as a free
> software/open source license is surprising, and leads to a
> pre-magna-carta logic; since those 2 groups define what FOSS is, and
> they say OFL is FOSS, then OFL is FOSS.

Based on my past dealings with them, I seriously doubt that the FSF
would approve a non-program as a free software licence.  They use a
weaker standard for non-program software like fonts, much to my
disappointment.

The OSI process is rather cumbersome and I don't think it produces the
right answer every time.  Even for programs, their list used to have
some differences with FSF.

I think Debian (one of the larger public review processes) accepts the
OFL because it believes the sale restriction is useless and can be
avoided by packaging the font for sale with a "hello world".

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/