LICENCE.txt and LICENCE-FAQ.txt are named unconventionally

[Dave Crossland]

LICENCE.txt and LICENCE-FAQ.txt are named unconventionally; typically OFL fonts are accompanied by the licence in OFL.txt and the OFL FAQ in OFL-FAQ.txt.

Therefore I suggest renaming LICENCE.txt to UFL.txt and LICENCE-FAQ.txt to UFL-FAQ.txt

The user benefit of this is that users can tell instantly what the licence is from the file name :)

[Paul Sladen (sladen)]

Thanks for that Dave. Checking back at earlier emails the file-layout and naming of:

  LICEN[CS]E.txt
  LICEN[CS]E-FAQ.txt

was recommended/requested by Nicholas in an email I got on 23 September 2010.

Nicholas: what's your thoughts on this? The UFL is still an interium licence and I'd prefer to have to keep with a sustainable file-layout going forward.

[Nicolas Spalinger (yosch)]

I'd agree with Paul and say that LICEN[CS]E* is fine and more sustainable long-term.

Seeing that the interim license is project-specific I'd say it's no problem. I don't think the acronym is widely known. (It is not designed to be used in other project trees besides Ubuntu font branches and also has not got FSF or OSI recognition so can hardly be called typical).

[Paul Sladen (sladen)]

Thanks for that Nicolas.

As an aside, the repackaging of the Ubuntu Font Family in the Google Font Directory was changed a week ago on 2011-01-21:

   http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/issues/detail?id=30
   http://code.google.com/webfonts/family?family=Ubuntu#download

this now includes just the four .ttfs, plus a renamed "LICENCE.txt" -> "UFL.txt".