Open davelab6 opened 4 years ago
Please don't. OFL is non-free (it forbids sale).
If you must, please leave Apache as an option.
Please don't. OFL is non-free (it forbids sale).
It forbids sale "by itself", which Debian, OSI and FSF all accepted as free.
If you must, please leave Apache as an option.
This won't happen.
It forbids sale "by itself", which Debian, OSI and FSF all accepted as free.
Yet it remains by definition non-free.
This won't happen.
Why not?
It forbids sale "by itself", which Debian, OSI and FSF all accepted as free.
Yet it remains by definition non-free.
Kindly, I don't accept your personal opinion as a definition; I accept https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#DFSG-compatible_Licenses & https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Fonts & https://opensource.org/license/ofl-1-1 all being in agreement as a "widely shared" definition.
This won't happen.
Why not?
Because it is helpful for end-users to find all fonts in a type library under the same license, which is an ideal yet to be practically achieved for the google fonts library, but that license for this library is the OFL.
All references to Apache need to be replaced with OFL in source and the next builds