Here is the text of the license found at
> [2] https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md
## License
Hack Copyright 2015, Christopher Simpkins with Reserved Font Name "Hack".
Bitstream Vera Sans Mono Copyright 2003 Bitstream Inc. and licensed under the
Bitstream Vera License
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
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:40:00 -0400 Chris Simpkins wrote:
> [...] 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.
Hello,
I agree that font licensing is a quagmire.
Well, I even go further and pers
> 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
Based on the recent discussion of the "Hack" typeface, I have become
curious.
Debian ships fonts in "main" where the source package contains only .ttf
files. ttf-bitstream-vera is an example of such a package.
Are ".ttf" files "source files" under the DFSG? (Surely they are not
the source files
Jeff Epler writes:
> Are ".ttf" files "source files" under the DFSG?
That's not a question that can be answered for all works. It needs to be
asked of each work.
> (Surely they are not the source files used within Bitstream during the
> development of the font!)
Probably not. The question to a
6 matches
Mail list logo
