@hfhchan the OFL says « and no other license », which means that it is not compatible with anything, even MIT/BSD (3) The recipient must license the derivative program under the terms of this agreement. (3) `spin-off program` means a digital font program created as a result of a modification, addition, deletion, replacement or other adaptation to or to part or all of the licensing program, and includes a case in which a digital font program has been recompiled by retrieving font information from part or all of the license submission or embedded fonts; from a digital document file, with or without modification of the retrieved font information. The license granted in the previous article is subject to the following restrictions: (b) any additional file created by the font development program during the creation of the derivative program and that can be used for other modifications of the derived program, if it exists. However, the license contains a name clause for the reserve font. I understand that this applies primarily to the original work (Mincho API) and may be removed by authors of derivative works. (a) This does not allow for a « heterogeneous » license – the combination of different works under different but compatible licenses – which we need to do here. Licensor makes available the License Program (as defined in Section 1 below) under the terms of this License Agreement (« Agreement »). Any use, reproduction or dissemination of the License Program or any exercise of rights under this Agreement by a Recipient (as defined in Article 1 below) constitutes acceptance of this Agreement by the Recipient. Is the IPA Font License accepted for inclusion in Google Fonts? A ton of Chinese/Japanese fonts are ipA licensed, as they are derived from the Mincho IPA. 4. Where a recipient extracts embedded fonts from a digital document file to create a derivative program, that derivative program is subject to the terms of this Agreement. Do you think IAP would move from its own license to OFL? (1) `digital font program` means a computer program containing fonts or used to render or display fonts.
While this license is (barely) free, it is not GPL compatible. This means that, like Bitstream Vera, you can`t take a font under the IPA license and create a derivative work that is gpL -booked (or vice versa). (4) No person shall use or include the name of the licensing program as the program name, font name or file name of the derivative program. No, for new policies, only the OFL is accepted; We discuss this with upstream developers who can publish their own work under OFL and remove all parts of the IAP. (2) `licensing program` means a digital font program that has been authorized by the licensor under this Agreement. This means that this restriction only applies to anyone who receives a copy of the software, not to the owner of the font itself, right? (b) What you propose to market a homogeneously licensed plant under multiple incompatible licenses may only work for the first distributor; maybe not all downstream distributors can market the plant under another license if they have the option to use of the OFL. . . .