Noto unified font

Luke Dashjr luke at
Sat Oct 8 21:50:42 CDT 2016

On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote:
> On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(
> Which alternate license would you recommend?

MIT license or LGPL seem reasonable and common among free fonts. Some also 
choose GPL, but AFAIK it's unclear how the LGPL vs GPL differences apply to 

On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:16:37 AM you wrote:
> That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and
> of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone
> else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort
> into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the
> moral rights of the developer.

It's the standard definition of free software.

More information about the Unicode mailing list