Gervase Markham wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: >> Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the >> license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction. > > It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list > for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's not a freeness issue, > let's focus on more important stuff (if there is any). > >> Actually, DFSG#4 states, in part: >> >> | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or >> | version number from the original software. >> >> This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the >> original software is acceptable. >> I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved >> Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. > > I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Because all of the Reserved Font > Names will have been used for the font in the ancestor version tree of > the software somewhere, they are all the name of the "original software" > - at different points in its development.
Right, if that's guaranteed, then it should be a DFSG-free restriction. Can that ever be not the case (a Reserved Font Name sneaking in somehow)? -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
