<div class="gmail_quote">Nicolas (M),<br><br>Thanks for your response to my email! More below.<br><br>On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Mailhot <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nicolas.mailhot@gmail.com">nicolas.mailhot@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Basically, I don't think the format of your font should drive your<br>
licensing decisions. If the GPL is appropriate for the metatype<br>
version it's appropriate for the OTF version. Just "it looks more like<br>
software as usual" is a weak reason.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>I think that the license of my font _should_ be driven by the format, or, more specifically, by the information that is being released and reused for making a derivative work.<br><br>Releasing MetaType1 sources under the GPL and the OTF file under the OFL seems to accomplish exactly what I want:<br>
<br>If someone makes a derivative font by modifying the sources and distributes it, then I want them to be required to distribute their modified sources, just as the GPL requires. It doesn't seem to me that the OFL would require this.<br>
<br>If however someone modifies the OTF file directly using FontForge, then using the GPL is rather nonsensical since there is no source. In that case, the OFL seems to be the perfect license.<br><br>I don't see how either license by itself accomplishes my goals. Licensing the sources under the GPL (with font embedding exception) and the OTF file under the OFL seems a reasonable compromise that accomplishes what I want.<br>
<br>Best wishes,<br>Stephen<br><br>