For approval: SIL Open Font License 1.1

[Lawrence Rosen]

Bruce Perens asked:
> So, your position on explaining the license to its users is that
> such explanations belong outside of the license?

Sort of. I believe that the analysis of what constitutes a derivative work
is entirely independent of any license. For that, it matters not what the
license itself says nor how the FAQ purports to explain that license. I've
made this point many times here, particularly when describing the misleading
information about linking in the GPL FAQ.

And if something proves *not* to be a derivative work, then an open source
license doesn't automatically reach to it regardless of what the license or
its FAQ says.

John Cowan previously wrote that, in his opinion and in some circumstances,
rendering a copyrightable work with a font "would be a derivative work of
the font, at least arguably." That argument can be made, if at all,
regardless of the licenses for the work and the font. (I don't agree with
John, by the way; I think it would be a derivative work of the copyrightable
work, but not of the font.)

Software license may prohibit certain combinations of copyrightable work and
copyrightable font--but not if they are open source licenses! Only
proprietary licenses can impose such restrictions on combinations affecting
*use* of the works.

/Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Perens [mailto:bruce at perens.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
> Cc: 'License Review'
> Subject: Re: For approval: SIL Open Font License 1.1
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > 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
> Right. So, your position on explaining the license to its users is that
> such explanations belong outside of the license?
> 
>     Thanks
> 
>     Bruce