Re: pt-cyrillic-ttf license

["Mike M. Volokhov" <mike.volokhov%gmail.com@localhost>]

Hello and Happy New Year!

Dec 31, 2009, at 12:18 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
>  However, I bet that being one of most advanced font makers, ParaType
>  will want to be the exclusive copyright holder in this case. Anyway,
> 
> Don't confuse choice/author of license and copyright holder.  By using
> the SIL OFL, ParaType would remain as copyright holder of the fonts,
> just as people who release code under GPL2 continue to hold copyright,
> without any automatic assignment to the FSF.

Well, I'm not. But I reread the licenses/open-font-license once more,
and must confess that I was confused by "SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE" header.

So I'll try to convince ParaType to switch to the OFL, especially
taking in account that I got acknowledgement that their license is
really based on it. Also, I was surprised that font was not officially
announced yet, so this means that switch still could be possible.

>  I wrote them an email where asked to consider using SIL OFL (which
>  seem was used as base - PT Sans & Serif fonts license looks as
>  excellent translation of the OFL in fact), or provide a pointer
>  to English variant of the license at least.
> 
>  In case of negative result I think it would be good to import ParaType
>  Open License in native (Russian) language.
> 
> So far all licenses in pkgsrc are in english.  I can see the point of
> importing that one in Russian if that's all that is available, though.

Please take a look to lha-license. But good news that English version
of the ParaType license will be published as well. So if switching to
the OFL wouldn't be possible the pkgsrc will get internationalized copy
at least.

> Another issue, more for them than us, is how their fonts fare under the
> Debian Free Software Guidelines.  A license only in Russian that hasn't
> been approved as Free by FSF or Open Source by OSI will need a license
> file and a tag that isn't in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES even if the
> authors intend it to be a free license.

Yes, that's right, the current ParaType license was not approved by OSI.
And, of course, I'll follow this procedure as a last resort.

Thanks for you notes, Greg!

--
Regards,
Mishka.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support
A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy
Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev 
_______________________________________________
pkgsrc-wip-discuss mailing list
pkgsrc-wip-discuss%lists.sourceforge.net@localhost
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pkgsrc-wip-discuss