pkgsrc-WIP-discuss archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: which license to use?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:56:26AM -0600, Larson, Timothy E. wrote:
> > Let's do a practical review first, ok?
> > 
> > (1), (1a) and (2) are effectively CC-NC-ND
> OK, good so far.
> > (3) and (3a) shouldn't be in a generic license. (4) is effectively
> > useless in many jurisdictions too. (5) is either evil or useless.
> So, instead of having 3/3a in the license to say "This doesn't apply
> to fonts X/Y/Z", you'd suggest having extra-license statement saying,
> "The ${mylicense} license applies to all my fonts except X/Y/Z"? 
> Since those forbidden fonts are not in the package anyway, those
> clauses seem superfluous in this cas, but I see what you're saying.

I would recomment pointing to the right open/commercial license on the
page of each font family, yes.

> Clause 4 seems obvious to me: if you don't abide by the license, you
> no longer have license to use the licensed material. Break the terms
> of the agreement, and the agreement is off. But IANAL, so maybe
> something like that must still be stated.


> I don't know if clause 5 is meant to imply that changes would work
> retroactively, or just that updated versions of the license may apply
> to future downloads. I can see how the former could really bite someone.


> > Now for the specific case of a font license, I would strongly
> > recomment studying two of the Open Source licenses:
> > 
> >
> >
> I'm pretty sure they're not meant to be Open Source fonts.  CC BY-NC-ND
> may be an option, if the "NC" part allows for commercial USE just not
> commercial DISTRIBUTION.  *skims*  Seems this
> distinction is not covered. Hmmm...

I don't know what the intentions are, but reading Open Source licenses
can help to form a clear picture of the intention and therefore can help
to make clear what is used. I was mentioning CC to give a clear idea of
the concept, but the NC part is problematic here for the same reason as
the original license text.

> > One important aspect to consider is that digital use of a font can be
> > considered either a copy or a modified version (since it is only a
> > subset of the original font). So a "no sell" clause would effectively
> > prevent using the font in commercial documents. I don't know if this
> > is the intention or not.
> So you suggest something like the explicit grant of rights to create
> commercial products using the font, like the dbz-ttf-license has?

dbz-ttf-license talks about it. I'm not sure it is a good example. The
"Linux distributation" clause certainly feels bogus to me based on the
BSD background. The separation between pay-by-time and pay-for-use is
also weak. The list of use cases is also a bit schizophrenic, if I may
use somewhat stronger language. My point is that the enumeration makes
it clear that the author has a picture in mind what he likes other to do
with his work and what not, but it doesn't seem to be a very sharp

I hope Ms. Bettencourt doesn't get the wrong impression from this :)


Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in 
Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data 
generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual
or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business 
pkgsrc-wip-discuss mailing list

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index