Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: teeworlds not free software

[Sam Geeraerts]

Karl Berry schreef:
> Hi Karl,
>
>     be worked around it 'with a simple hello world'. I find it kinda silly,
>
> The non-silliness comes in when you see how font knockoff sites operate:
> they copy font x from somewhere and throw it into their production
> process to sell it (under their own proprietary terms) on their web
> site.
>
> The condition, silly as it is to you and me, stops them from using such
> a standard process, because they don't have permission to just sell the
> font as-is.

Clause 5 of the OFL [1] says that the font must be distributed under the 
same license. So even if it didn't have the "don't sell by itself" 
clause how would those knockoff sites be able to sell those fonts under 
their own proprietary terms?

Selling Free Software [2] says that it's an opportunity to raise funds 
for further development (by anyone). On the other hand, question 1.8 in 
the OFL FAQ [3] says that profit should only go to the original authors. 
 The FSF license list [4] says the OFL is not recommended for anything 
other than fonts. I assume because of the "don't sell by itself" clause.

Why is selling e.g. Emacs by itself a good thing, but selling a font by 
itself not so much?

[1] http://scripts.sil.org/OFL_web
[2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
[3] http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web
[4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html