Closed davelab6 closed 9 years ago
Problem with OFL is many users don't understand it and contact me asking if x or y is ok - why not MIT?
@davelab6 There is literally nothing you can do with OFL that you can't do with MIT. MIT is far more permissive and doesn't bar the usage of a font's name in derivatives.
Is it some kind of requirement in a policy somewhere? If that's the case, I suppose Monoid could be dual licensed.
@chase problem is there are two kinds of OFL - those with and those without reserved font name.
It's a mess really but problem is most font designers use it. I work together with @devalab6 on FontForge and I tried suggesting we removed RFN from our default OFL. it got some odd replies (not form dave or other core members) but others...
I think we'll keep MIT for now - see no reason to change :)
I can't host it on google fonts then :/ On 3 Jun 2015 1:30 pm, "Andreas Larsen" notifications@github.com wrote:
Closed #20 https://github.com/larsenwork/monoid/issues/20.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/larsenwork/monoid/issues/20#event-321574593.
Why not?
I'm new to all this but isn't MIT more permissive than OFL? Any whoop: How about apache then? (I think I remember seeing some google fonts having that license)
I've just really grown to not like OFL because I get "spammed" by people not understanding it and asking if it's ok to do this and that (answer is always yes) :sunglasses:
GF is moving all those Apache fonts to OFL ;)
Oh no...hmm...guess we could always dual license so it's MIT here on GitHub and OFL on Google.
You can add both license files to the repo, that will work
ok, will do :)
Please consider switching from MIT to OFL :)