Noto unified font

[Harshula]

Philippe, I presume your response was intended for Luke. If not, you may
want to re-read the thread.

On 09/10/16 15:37, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also
> explicitly allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
> http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL
> 
> It is not directly compatible with the GPL in a composite product, but
> with LGPL there's no problem, and there's no problem if the font is
> clearly separable and distributed along with its licence, even if the
> software coming with it or the package containing it is commercial: you
> are allowed to detach it from the package and redistribute.
> 
> Really you are challenging the licence for unfair reasons
> May be you just think that the GPL or MIT licences are enough.
> 
> Or you'd like the Public Domain (which in fact offers no protection and
> no long term warranty as it is reappropriatable at any time by
> proprietary licences, even retrospectively, we see everyday companies
> registering properties on pseudo-new technologies that are in fact
> inherited from the past and are used since centuries or more by the
> whole humanity, they leave some space only for today's current usages in
> limtied scopes, but protect everything else by inventing some strange
> concepts around the basic feature, with unfair claims and then want to
> collect taxes). Also an international public domain does not exist at
> all (it is always restricted by new additions to the copyright laws).
> Publishing somethingf in the Public domain is really unsafe.
> 
> 2016-10-09 5:35 GMT+02:00 Harshula <harshula at hj.id.au
> <mailto:harshula at hj.id.au>>:
> 
>     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):
>     https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Fonts
>     <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Fonts>
> 
>     >> 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:
>     https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/blob/master/NEWS
>     <https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/blob/master/NEWS>
> 
>     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.
> 
>     cya,
>     #