Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >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? > You two obviously do, but I keep disagreeing from this extensive > interpretation of DFSG #4.
How does one interpret DFSG #4 in order to conclude that works solely under the OFL 1.1review2 whose Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions *don't* follow the DFSG? It seems a pretty obviously OK-for-main type to me. It's also surprising to have Marco d'Itri claiming something isn't free when I think it is. Puzzled, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
