From: Guntupalli K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-04-14 18:40:47
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:12:54 +0530 K. K. Subramaniam wrote: > On Monday 06 Apr 2009 12:56:37 pm G Karunakar wrote: > > So one way out - say publisher is considered upstream, then > > bugs/patches for font could be made and sent upstream, to have it > > fixed and a new release made. So in such case upstream, is > > holding control on font release, and maintain it as official font > > release, I am not sure if this still will make font 'free' . > I expect not. Over a period of time, the downstream will accumulate > a lot of changes that may not get into the upstream font and the > latter will cease to be relevant. Given the amount of effort that > has gone into this font, it would be a pity to let it fade way like > that. > > Possibilities are: > a) Modify the current license to explicitly include FOSS freedoms. > This may involve discussions around the type of license (Creative > Commons, MIT etc.) and the elements of FOSS that needs to be in it. > > b) Fork the font into two. Akshar Yogini would remain a branded > font with its current set of features, while its derivative will be > released with a free license and a different name. Modifications to > the latter may or may not be absorbed into the former. > > c) Leave it as it is. It will be like Mona Lisa - work of art, > warts and all. No further derivations. Topic closed. > Its (c).. topic closed! Karunakar -- ********************************** * कार्य: http://www.indlinux.org * * चिठ्ठा: http://cartoonsoft.com/blog * ********************************** |