: What are the differences between OFL and Apache License for fonts? SIL Open Font License is very clear and easy to understand, but I can't understand Apache License. Can anyone tell me the

@Welton168

Apache 2.0 vs SIL Open Font License 1.1

To begin with, the Apache license was created with computer software in mind, as a free/open license that requires a software's source code to be freely available. As it can be argued what the source of a font really is and because using and sharing fonts have quite specific needs, SIL decided to create a new free license for use with fonts. The Open Font License (OFL) was born, with a much more simple language.

Thus, the underlying difference between these two licenses is for what purpose they were designed: software in general vs fonts specifically.

In general, both licenses are quite similar:


You may use, distribute, modify and distribute the modifications of the font
Copyright information and similar must be retained
The text of the license itself must be included


I am not a lawyer, but here are some of the biggest differences as I see it:


Apache does not require that modifications to the font must be distributed under the same license, while the OFL requires that (called copyleft)
Apache allows a font to be sold in any manner, while the OFL requires that the font be bundled with some (almost any) software for it to be sold
Apache requires that changes are logged
The OFL may require that a modified font must be renamed
The OFL explicitly mentions that the font can be embedded (this should not be a problem with Apache, but there is some uncertainty regarding this with other free software licenses)

Vote Up Vote Down