13 ms·
It's actually just the SIL font license, which is what basically every open source font uses. They just removed the preamble of it for some reason.
by hlieberman 2y ago
It's actually just the SIL font license, which is what basically every open source font uses. They just removed the preamble of it for some reason.
- Javalicious 2y agoYeah, I wish they would just keep the boilerplate OFL intact. I spent way too much time trying to figure out what the "real" license was, and if I could use it in my open source projects.
- Freak_NL 2y agoIt's obnoxious really, and borders on amateurism. If they want the OFL, then use the OFL. Don't make me try to understand yet another licence; I'm not a lawyer.
- Nemo_bis 2y agoInfuriatingly, they didn't actually use the same text but they introduced multiple tiny changes so that you're forced to check word-by-word whether it's still an open/free license. Was it really necessary to replace "Original or Modified Versions" with "The Original Version or Modified Version", or "Reserved Font Name(s)" with "Reserved Typeface Name"? So necessary that you're willing to sacrifice potential reuse?
- JamesCoyne 2y agoGoogle thinks it's OFL v1.1 https://github.com/googlefonts/atkinson-hyperlegible?tab=readme-ov-file#license https://github.com/googlefonts/atkinson-hyperlegible?tab=rea... But it also has a Reserved Font Name, so probably OFL-1.1-RFN going by the SPDX License List https://spdx.org/licenses/ https://spdx.org/licenses/ Kinda too bad they don't just state which license they're aiming for.