Re: OFL-1.1 and Reserved Font Name

Nathan Willis

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:19 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@...> wrote:
The SIL Open Font License 1.1 (SPDX short identifier OFL-1.1) and its
superseded predecessor (OFL-1.0) have a notion of a "Reserved Font
Name". In the case of OFL-1.1, at least, this is contemplated as a
licensor-optional addition to a copyright notice ("Copyright (c)
<dates>, <Copyright Holder> (<URL|email>), with Reserved Font Name
<Reserved Font Name>"), with some licensing consequences flowing from
specifying the name ("No Modified Version of the Font Software may use
the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is
granted by the corresponding Copyright Holder.").

Shouldn't OFL-1.1 (and possibly also OFL-1.0) with the Reserved Font
Name feature be distinguished in SPDX from OFL-1.1 where no Reserved
Font Name is specified?

When I inquired about this topic ages ago, the impression I got from the replies was that the RFN mechanism was a better fit for the "Exception" list (or whatever it may be called going forward for other modifiers). At least in part that made sense because the RFN declaration, as you've pointed out above, gets made in a statement separate from the text of the license. So that's why I requested it as an addition to the exceptions list.

Admittedly, though, I also thought that would be a less intrusive and less difficult process than having OFL+RFN recognized as a separate license — which would mean going through the OSI process in addition to the SPDX process, thus extending the length of time before users could make the distinction in their compliance tools.



Join { to automatically receive all group messages.