-------- Original Message --------
From: Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: o lu <oluoluolu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, libreoffice-dev
<libreoffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2023-1-JunT05:33:46Z
Mark wrote:
Surely it would be the proper use of resources, if TDF hires people to
(1) continuously monitor unlimited number of font foundries and their fonts; (2) checking legal issues with each of those fonts on any system, any country with its local legislation, and any use (commercial/personal), with possible change at any time by author; and (3) be legally responsible for possible mistakes, because it wasn't the
...
Or do I miss something?
A) If:
i) Restrict font eligibility to those that are distributed under the SIL
Open Source License 1.1;
ii) Documentation as to the validity of the SIL Open Source License 1.1
is obtained;
then issues 1, 2, and 3 pretty much disappear.
Granted, that doesn't work when countries follow the "recommendation" of
the European Commission to make the use of FLOSS illegal. When that
happens TDF has a far graver legal problem, than illegal distribution of
third party fonts.
B) As far back as OpenOffice.org 1.x, fonts have been distributed as
extensions. One of the rationales behind why the Extension & Template
section UI of the LibO site, is so that fonts can be more easilly
distributed as extensions.
jonathon
