This started as replies to the DFSG bug, but I thought it might be a better idea to keep the two issues separate and file a separate bug.
The Ubuntu Fonts License is not a free software license (as in freedom). Although the Free Software Foundation hasn't said a word on it, I've conducted an analysis into it, and I don't like what I've found.
The four essential freedoms appear to be mostly satisfied. After all, it does " allow the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely". There is, however, an unintended consequence of the definition of "propagate". I wonder why it specifically includes "except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy". The license only grants permission to Propagate the Font Software, so essentially it explicitly does not grant permission to use the fonts or modify a private copy. At least the preamble gives implicit permission to do those things.
The problem is that it doesn't necessarily allow modifications to be redistributed freely.
Suppose Mozilla Firefox were under this license. Forks like Iceweasel would have to be named "Firefox derivative Debian" or something similar. But the Mozilla trademark policy doesn't allow this, because the trademark and Firefox have both been modified. In this case, Canonical's trademark guidelines prohibit use of the Ubuntu name in commercial distributions. You must have the freedom to charge any price you want for free software, but you can't charge money for this font if it has been trivially modified.
To put it more simply, the license grants no rights under trademark law, and yet it requires you to use the trademark if you make trivial changes. In virtually all other licenses, if the trademark policy doesn't work for you, you can just get rid of the trademark, but this license doesn't allow that.
For the freedoms of free software to be real, they must be permanent unless you do something wrong. If the copyright holder can revoke the license or take away one of your freedoms, then the license is non-free. In this case, one of your important freedoms (distributing trivial modifications at all) can be taken away at will with a trademark, and therefore the license is non-free.
Here's how I would amend the license:
- It would be good to explicitly state that individuals do not have to rename modified private copies. The OFL doesn't do this, and I'm scared to modify any of the OFL fonts I have because it's a hassle to rename them.
- About section 2a: Why would you want to distribute a font with no changes other than the name? You would only lose the fame that the original version's name brings. You are prohibiting something that nobody would want to do, so there's no reason to retain that clause.
- Now to solve the problem of the naming restrictions. I took a while to think this over, because I know those restrictions were requested by the designers. Even if you remove "This license does not grant any rights under trademark law", the license is still non-free, because a trademark could still take away those freedoms at any time. I might suggest both removing that clause and granting the licensee an unlimited license (both within the conditions of the license and under trademark law) to use the font name in the "Y derivative X" name. For example, this sentence could be appended to clause 2c(ii):
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this license, in the event that a modified version is not Substantially Changed, permission is hereby granted to use the name of the Original Version solely in the context of meeting the requirements of this section."
Or something else that makes it clear that they may use the Original Version's name for any purpose in this context. That's what it would take to make this license free.
There are only two reasons I don't use Ubuntu. One is the inclusion of proprietary firmware blobs in the kernel. The other is this non-free font.
Where is the Debian bug for this?