On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:25:29AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > This would seem to be problematic: > > (3) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in > original or modified versions, may be sold by itself. That is a type of limitation, the most notorious historical example of which was in the SunRPC license. It *should* be problematic, and if this were a license for software hopefully we'd treat it as problematic. But there is a sort of unwritten principle in free software and open source that such restrictions are acceptable in font licenses. One completely unsatisfying attempt to justify this (which ought to apply to software licenses like SunRPC too), the 'Hello World' excuse, is found at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SILOFL The real reason why these things are tolerated in font licenses is pure (historical) unacknowledged expediency. Notice that a similar condition is in the Bitstream Vera license too. So be it. Richard > > On 22 March 2017 at 10:11, Randy Barlow <bowlofeggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello! > > > > I am interested in packaging the Hack Font for Fedora, but I notice > > that it seems to have what may be a custom license: > > > > https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md > > > > Is this license acceptable for Fedora? > > _______________________________________________ > > legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > -- > Stephen J Smoogen. > _______________________________________________ > legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
