Sorry, I was reading my mail threads according to time/date. I see now that the same has been proposed on the other thread. I also see you preferring not to act due to private commitments and time constrains.
Sorry, again, for bringing this up unnecessarily. All the best for your struggle, and keep it simple! /Szabolcs On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:49, Szelp, A. Sz. <[email protected]> wrote: > James, > > you might want to review (at least) the OFL: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIL_Open_Font_License, a license > specifically created for fonts, created with freedoms in mind. In several > respects it fits fonts much better than GPLv3. > > /Sz > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 18:12, James Kass <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I rather would stick with GPLv3, simply because more permissive license >> threatens freedom. For example, someone may take over my fonts, develop >> them further, and subsequently change their license to something >> commercial-only. It is what I want to avoid. Just something like stories >> known from MACOS X, initially Berkeley-licensed-software derivative, >> finally commercialized product. >> >> >> James Kass >> > >
