Re: Fonts for distribution

[Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh farsiweb info>]

ØÙØ ÙÙØØÙØÙØ 2006-02-23 ØØØØ 14:50 +1030Ø Clytie Siddall ÙÙØØ:
> This is interesting to hear, Roozbeh, thankyou, because on the debian- 
> i18n list, where I also brought up this topic, I was told somewhat  
> forcibly that the OFL doesn't allow distribution.

Well, "free-enough" is different for Debian and Fedora. In Debian, even
the GFDL is (sometimes?) considered non-free, while in Fedora,
"redistributable" is usually fine when talking about fonts, firmware,
and sometimes even documentation. Fedora even ships Luxi fonts, which
are not modifiable.

> > Last I heard, the Open Font Licence got its name change clause
> > (clause 3) wrong and prevents people making API-compatible
> > new fonts based on OFL'd ones (that is, derived works cannot
> > be drop-in replacements for an original). It goes far further
> > in this restriction than the Bitstream Vera fonts, for example.
> > The Bitstream Vera README tells you how to include a local.conf
> > file to be a drop-in replacement, but that seems forbidden
> > for OFL'd packages.

This is the only important point raised, but I don't read SIL OFL like
that, as the part this refers to is clause 3, which only restricts
"Modified Version of the Font Software", which your fontconfig
local.conf is not. It only applies if the original software ships a
certain local.conf under the OFL license and you use a modified version
of that local.conf.

But Debian people may make their mind anyway they like...

roozbeh