Subject: Re: Open Font License -- default accept or not?
To: None <>
From: Joerg Sonnenberger <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 11/05/2007 16:25:25
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 04:29:55PM +0100, Dieter Baron wrote:
> In article <> 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.

Yes, it is. From the FAQ:

Question: 1.6  Can I include the fonts on a CD of freeware or commercial

Answer: Yes, as long some other font or software is also on the disk, so
the OFL font is not sold by itself.