RE: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex script rendering support on Android)

From: James Kass <jameskass_at_att.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:12:04 -0800 (PST)

I rather would stick with GPLv3, simply because more permissive license threatens freedom. For example, someone may take over my fonts, develop them further, and subsequently change their license to something commercial-only. It is what I want to avoid. Just something like stories known from MACOS X, initially Berkeley-licensed-software derivative, finally commercialized product.
James Kass

--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele_at_microsoft.com> wrote:

From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele_at_microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex script rendering support on Android)
To: "James Kass" <jameskass_at_att.net>, "unicode_at_unicode.org" <unicode_at_unicode.org>
Cc: "luke_at_dashjr.org" <luke_at_dashjr.org>
Date: Friday, February 3, 2012, 5:04 PM

 
 

GPL != “do what you want with them”
J  For example what Christoph pointed out.  You may want to consider a more permissive license if
 “do what you want” is your intent.
  
-Shawn
(as myself)
From: unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org]
On Behalf Of James Kass

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:17 AM

To: unicode_at_unicode.org

Cc: luke_at_dashjr.org

Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex script rendering support on Android)
  

License already included in SourceForge download, namely GPLv3.
  
James Kass

--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Luke-Jr <luke_at_dashjr.org> wrote:

From: Luke-Jr <luke_at_dashjr.org>

Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex script rendering support on Android)

To: unicode_at_unicode.org

Cc: "James Kass" <jameskass_at_att.net>

Date: Friday, February 3, 2012, 3:09 PM

On Friday, February 03, 2012 9:52:26 AM James Kass wrote:

> All fonts are now of course freeware - simply do what you want with them

> all.

"Freeware" isn't afaik a legal term.

Could you slap some kind of license on them?

The CC0 or MIT licenses sound like what you might want:

    http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

   
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

  
Received on Fri Feb 03 2012 - 11:17:26 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Feb 03 2012 - 11:17:28 CST