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
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/
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.
> On 22 March 2017 at 10:11, Randy Barlow <firstname.lastname@example.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/
> > Is this license acceptable for Fedora?
> > ______________________________
> > legal mailing list -- email@example.com
> > To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.
> Stephen J Smoogen.
> legal mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.
legal mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.