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
fonts.
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.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
Received on Sat Oct 08 2016 - 21:51:13 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Oct 08 2016 - 21:51:14 CDT