Noto unified font

Harshula harshula at
Sat Oct 8 22:35:36 CDT 2016

On 09/10/16 13:50, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> 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. :(

FSF appears to classify OFL as a Free license (though incompatible with
the GNU GPL & FDL):

>> 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 
> fonts.

Interestingly, Noto project saw advantages of OFL and moved to using it,
not too long ago:

It seems you disagree with FSF's interpretation of the OFL and bundling
Hello World as being sufficient. Are there other reasons for your
preference for MIT/LGPL/GPL over OFL?

> 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.

Why are you attributing Shriramana Sharma's email to me? It might be
clearer if you replied to his email.


More information about the Unicode mailing list