On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:21:21 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Forbidding reuse of a the name of the original software is OK, > > forbidding an arbitrary name is not. > > Don't you agree with me that this goes beyond what is allowed > > (again, as a compromise!) by DFSG#4 ? > > Please don't ask questions in the negative.
Sorry. I didn't mean to be unpolite. > > I agree that forbidding arbitrary names is not following the DFSG, > so packagers must watch for that OFL clause being used in that way. OK, so this license is currently a check-on-case-by-case one. If the license drafters cannot be persuaded to enhance this clause (so that the license can only be used in a DFSG-free manner), then each and every case will have to be checked... It will be boring, but better than an unconditionally non-free license, anyway... In summary, can we conclude that works solely released under the terms of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the work? -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpvQHX2fSwa6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
