Is it worth trying to be stricter on that front?
On Mar 22, 2017 10:34 AM, "Richard Fontana" rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:25:29AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
This would seem to be problematic:
(3) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself.
That is a type of limitation, the most notorious historical example of which was in the SunRPC license. It *should* be problematic, and if this were a license for software hopefully we'd treat it as problematic.
But there is a sort of unwritten principle in free software and open source that such restrictions are acceptable in font licenses. One completely unsatisfying attempt to justify this (which ought to apply to software licenses like SunRPC too), the 'Hello World' excuse, is found at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SILOFL
The real reason why these things are tolerated in font licenses is pure (historical) unacknowledged expediency. Notice that a similar condition is in the Bitstream Vera license too. So be it.
Richard
On 22 March 2017 at 10:11, Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Hello!
I am interested in packaging the Hack Font for Fedora, but I notice that it seems to have what may be a custom license:
https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Is this license acceptable for Fedora? _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org