Comment 1 for bug 703990

Hi Mukund

There are no restrictions on the use of the font, nor on your ability to
modify it. The only constraint is the choice of name, where we wish to
strike a balance between a completely fragmented naming landscape and
the right to diverge and head off in completely different directions.

On 17/01/11 15:05, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> These two sentences are incompatible for other users, if one assumes
> that "Ubuntu" is a trademark of Canonical. Due to the first sentence,
> one would prefer to avoid using the Ubuntu name if possible, which
> should be okay for a freely licensed work.

There's no need to avoid the use of the name Ubuntu, there's an implicit
right to use the name of the font in order to use the font :-)

> Clause 2 seems like an advertising clause, because it enforces the use
> of the name "Ubuntu" unless the font is changed substantially. Though
> there is an attempt to define "Substantially Changed", it still is not
> very clear to the layman (vs. a fontographer) what such changes may be.
>
> I request that you consider removing such an advertising clause from
> future versions of this license which enforces the name "Ubuntu", so
> that derived fonts may freely be named, similar to how derived free
> software can freely be renamed. If the font is indeed intended to be a
> copyleft free font, you should not have an objection to it.

If we believed that one of the standard copyleft free licenses was
appropriate, we would have used that. We think it's worth exploring
alternatives, and the fact that most open fonts use typography-specific
licenses is supportive of that. The clause you refer to is not an
advertising clause, you are not required to state that you are using the
font. It just affects derived works, which need to be either "part of
the Ubuntu font family" as variations, or completely distinct from it if
substantially modified.

 status invalid

Mark