Re: Lilypond Feta font license

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I just want to let you know that I got a request from two guys that
>> state that they are developing a drum sheet music editor.  They ask me
>> if I can give my approval to you for switching the Feta font license
>> from GNU to GNU+OFL, such that their code need not be open source.
>> They also refer to a discussion in the context of the Waltrop meeting.
>
> Ugh.  As far as I understood the discussion, the idea was to help other
> free software projects not under the GPL, not to support non-free
> software.  I don't have any copyright in Feta fonts myself i think, but
> if the sole currently known reason for relicensing was to help non-free
> software, I'd recommend against it.  It would be against the spirit of
> the GNU project I believe.

The idea behind this is twofold: first, the GPL does not make sense
for a font. Second, the font can be used independently of LilyPond,
and thus it is in a sense a standalone work, the use of which does not
create a derivative work.

Although, this project in particular is not GPLd, questions about
using Feta have popped up from time to time before from others, and
the OFL is a way to answer all these questions in one fell swoop.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen