For approval: SIL Open Font License 1.1

Bruce Perens bruce at
Fri Nov 7 06:32:53 UTC 2008

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
>> Only software? I can't for example, distribute the fonts as part of a
>> disk full of documents that incorporate them by reference? This seems to
>> me to be a pretty big problem.
> I agree it's not ideal, but to be fair they are relying on a
> longstanding and deliberate loophole in OSD #1 (distribution is allowed
> if it's part of an "aggregate software distribution").
That is written to fit the original Artistic license.

It would not take the font license out of OSD compliance if they would 
allow other sorts of aggregates.
> OSD is very clear in allowing this ("The license may require derived
> works to carry a different name") and for fonts there is very good
> reason (if I specify "coolfont OR serif" I don't want the software to
> use a sans-serif font called coolfont.
When I wrote that rule there was a lot of concern that the author's 
integrity would be violated. This has not turned out to be so big a 
problem as some foresaw. But I don't object to their goal of reserving 
names, I just think they need to tighten up the language in order to not 
prohibit unintentionally things they don't want to prohibit.

Like any first time license writers, they have a lot of "do what I mean, 
not what I say".
> I don't think a court would accept "The" as a reserved name under longstanding trademark law.
Yes, this is a simplistic example of the problem.
> Matt Flaschen

More information about the License-review mailing list