My reading of this says that any modified version cannot be called STIX or
any confusingly similar name.
You may add or change characters. You may remove characters but if you do so
you must note that the font does not contain the full set of characters that
STIX had.
Well that is at least my
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:15:56 +0100 Ralf Stubner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:56 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Actually, I think clause 4 of the license fails to meet the DFSG.
> >
> > Clause 4 states:
> >
> > |4. You may also (a) add glyphs or characters to the Fonts, or
> > | modif
On 11/1/07, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are the licence terms from the download page. It seems to be OK
> for non-free. Clause 4 seems like it isn't a full modification clause,
> Any thoughts on it?
Consensus seems to be that it is non-free. I'm going to attempt to get
a clarifica
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 12:14 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >4. You may also (a) add glyphs or characters to the Fonts, or
> > modify the shape of existing glyphs, so long as the base set of glyphs
> > is not removed and (b) delete glyphs or characters from the F
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:56 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Actually, I think clause 4 of the license fails to meet the DFSG.
>
> Clause 4 states:
>
> |4. You may also (a) add glyphs or characters to the Fonts, or
> | modify the shape of existing glyphs, so long as the base set of glyphs
* MJ Ray:
> Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>4. You may also (a) add glyphs or characters to the Fonts, or
>> modify the shape of existing glyphs, so long as the base set of glyphs
>> is not removed and (b) delete glyphs or characters from the Fonts,
>> provided that the resulting font s
Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>4. You may also (a) add glyphs or characters to the Fonts, or
> modify the shape of existing glyphs, so long as the base set of glyphs
> is not removed and (b) delete glyphs or characters from the Fonts,
> provided that the resulting font set is distributed
On 01/11/2007, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that the license does not allow modifications to the base
> set of glyphs (not even through patch files for the source code, with
> the explicit permission to distribute what is built from modified source
> code).
> IMHO, thi
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:34:28 + John Halton wrote:
> On 01/11/2007, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/1/07, STIX Fonts Project Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here are the licence terms from the download page. It seems to be OK
> > for non-free. Clause 4 seems like it isn't a f
On 01/11/2007, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/1/07, STIX Fonts Project Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are the licence terms from the download page. It seems to be OK
> for non-free. Clause 4 seems like it isn't a full modification clause,
> Any thoughts on it?
I'm no expert
On 11/1/07, STIX Fonts Project Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The STIX Fonts project group is pleased to announce the availability of the
> STIX Fonts in beta test version. You are being notified of this milestone
> because you requested that we contact you when the files were available for
11 matches
Mail list logo
