This is very helpful Ian and I really do appreciate your feedback. I think
that we are in agreement on our end that elimination of the reserved font name
will be the best approach for all involved.
This will likely come along with licensing of all changes that we have made to
the upstream sour
s for another and would be
interested in your feedback about any potential DFSG issues associated with
commitment of source modifications to the public domain if we moved towards
this strategy.
On Aug 16, 2017, 11:02 AM -0400, Francesco Poli ,
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:40:00 -04
> I personally think that technical issues should not be worked around by
imposing licensing restrictions.
If typeface development tools need to be improved in order to get
better QA, then I hope they can be enhanced from a *technical* point of
view. In the meanwhile, licensing restrictions should
Thank you Jeff. The Hack Open Font License was modeled on the Bitstream Vera
license and SIL OFL. Downstream open source project font licensing from the
days prior to SIL OFL (and to some degree even after that period) is a bit of a
quagmire.
Item 2 is where the reserved font name declaration
will try to
summarize the outcome of the conversation for Paride and our users, then point
a link to the debian-legal archives so that we have a record of the discussion.
Thanks in advance for your help. I greatly appreciate your assistance.
Chris Simpkins
5 matches
Mail list logo
