> Which shows another problem of custom non-standard licenses: good
> luck finding anyone at Oracle willing to relicense Narrow now they
> got rid of OpenOffice.
I'm the last person to defend the Liberation Fonts license, but the
problem you refer to has nothing too much to do with whether a license
is standard or not. It would exist even if Liberation Fonts had been
under vanilla GPLv2 + GNU font-embedding exception.
It does have something to do with whether the font license is copyleft
or not. As to that, though, you say:
> the OFL is a nice BSD-ish license, it's not making consensus now
> because everyone wants a BSD-ish licence for fonts, but because the
> FSF never bothered to write a good font copyleft license resulting
> in painful experiments like the font exception or the liberation
I don't understand the basis for describing the OFL as "BSD-ish". It's
actually a copyleft font license. See clause 5.