[This message is supposed to continue the thread about licensing questions, but I just subscribed to the mailing list, so I can't reply directly to those messages.]
From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas mailhot laposte net>
Subject: Re: Help with licensing questions
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:39:47 +0100
> 12. The author thinking the metatype sources would require him to useI'm confused by this comment. My font Aurulent Sans is created by MetaType1 programs that look like this:
> some other license than the OFL because they look more software-ish is
> just confusing things (pretty common occurrence unfortunately). GPL-ing
> the build scripts would probably be more interesting, but a. they're
> lost and b. this would not change the font licensing at all.
> 10. Lastly, font sources in metatype format can be non-trivial to build,I have not lost the source for the MetaType1 programs, but rather for the build scripts. As you point out, it's tricky to build MetaType1 files, and I had created files that were particularly tuned to work with teTeX. I don't really feel that it is advantageous to recreate these files. I would much prefer to work on rewriting the MetaType1 programs using FontForge's Python scripting.
> and seem to require specific build scripts tuned to the TEX variant the
> distro ships. Building any font from metatype would probably require
> help from TEX specialists such as Jonathan Underwood.
> 11. In your case the author has lost those scripts, and does not intend
> to work from metatype anymore (preferring direct fontforge editing), so
> it's probably no great loss to forget the original metatype source. Just
> get him to publish an authoritative sfd version of his font, and use it
> as your source.