For approval: SIL Open Font License 1.1
lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Mon Nov 10 17:50:25 UTC 2008
Bruce, I agree, we're agreed. :-) I just quoted your text to suggest that it
is unnecessary and ineffective to say anything about linking of the font in
the license itself. /Larry
From: Bruce Perens [mailto:bruce at perens.com]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 9:11 AM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Cc: 'License Review'
Subject: Re: For approval: SIL Open Font License 1.1
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Bruce Perens suggested:
2. When this font, or information derived from this font, is embedded in
a document, other information in the document that is unrelated to this
font shall not be considered to be a derivative work of this font. For
example, embedding this font in a document does not make the text of the
document a derivative work of this font.
This is audacious. Nothing you can do with a mere font will make Moby Dick
(or any other independent copyrightable work) a derivative work of that
font, regardless of what your license says about linking.
It sounds to me as if we're agreed. Are you sure you read my text correctly?
More information about the License-review