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. 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. 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.
Attachment:
pgpRT9WZiwmkp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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