For approval: SIL Open Font License 1.1

Bruce Perens bruce at
Thu Nov 6 09:31:25 UTC 2008

> Perhaps Bruce is right, and if so, you should take his advice, but we
> don't weigh "quality of writing" as a part of compliance with the OSD.
We recently came very close to having the JMRI developer in a position 
to lose a counter-suit, due to a sloppy license. Fortunately we won the 
appeal, but it would have been bad to see him lose his home, car, 
savings, and copyrights because Larry Wall wrote the wrong words.

The community's standards have changed for licensing since 1998 when the 
rules were written. Back then we did not have access to good free legal 
counsel, and we didn't have much at risk. But whether or not OSI 
believes it is able to act on the legal cleanliness of a license 
parameter, I think it is the moral obligation of the license submitter 
not to submit a license that is likely to get some person in the 
community into a bind because a lawyer never reviewed it for problems in 
the language.

I suspect that expecting fonts to be included in the definition of 
"software" in every national jurisdiction, even though you don't define 
"software" in the license, is risky.



More information about the License-review mailing list