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