[theme-reviewers] Fonts and Licensing

Joseph Scott joseph at automattic.com
Fri Jun 25 18:22:26 UTC 2010

I've been looking through this, reading license text is not my idea of
a good time :-)

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:38 AM,  <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> To that end, could I get your/Matt's thoughts on the following font
> licenses, that have the same terms as the SIL Open Font license, above
> (and, as with SIL, are considered by FSF to be "free" fonts)?
>  - Arphic

I think this looks alright.

>  - Android (Apache 2.0)

Apache 2.0 license is GPLv3 compatible (according to
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses )
so lets call that one ok.

>  - Bitstream

Sounds ok.

>  - GUST e-Foundry/LPPL (LaTeX)
>  - Liberation
>  - ParaType Free Font License

I think this are likely ok as well.

> See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Approved_font_licenses
> I assume that, if SIL Open Font is acceptable, then so would any other
> similar license be acceptable. But, it would be better to get some
> official word before I update the Codex.

Go ahead and add them to the codex (with the link to the
fedoraproject.org as reference).  If we need to we can re-visit
individual items as well.

I don't really want to get into the licensing arbitration business,
I'd rather leave that to folks like the FSF.  To that end I'd like to
keep things fairly simple, i.e. pick one of the accepted licenses to
be eligible for consideration for the theme directory.

Joseph Scott
joseph at josephscott.org

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list