[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Karl Berry
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: teeworlds not free software
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 23:28:30 GMT

Hi Sam,

    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?

You're right, forget that part.

      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.

Well, everything about the OFL is about fonts.  I don't think it would
make a lot of sense to use it for anything else, with or without that

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

I'm not arguing the point myself.  As I understand it, SIL's reason was,
basically, to make it more plausible for individual type designers to
release libre fonts.

FWIW, this doesn't seem like the best place for lots of discussion about
it.  The various ofl and openfontlibrary lists talk about this ad


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]