For approval: SIL Open Font License 1.1

[Bruce Perens]

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
>