Subject: Re: Open Font License -- default accept or not?
To: None <tech-pkg@NetBSD.org>
From: Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/05/2007 16:29:55
In article <20071105140227.GA15621@britannica.bec.de> Joerg wrote:
: Hi all,
: the SIL Open Font License is considered to be a special purpose Free
: Software License (on the FSF list) for fonts. Due to the special nature,
: it differs from GPL and BSD license in a number of areas, one critical
: difference being that selling the font alone is prohibited. It is
: permitted to sell aggregated work containing such a font though.
: I don't think this warrants any NO_*_ON_* and I don't think it warrants
: requiring special acceptance, so I would like to add it to the default
: list of acceptable licenses.
Is a collection of packages (like a CD with binary packages) an
aggregated work? If that is allowed, I agree. Otherwise, we would
have to set NO_*_ON_CDROM.
Adding it to the default list of acceptable licenses seems fine to