Thank you Jeff. The Hack Open Font License was modeled on the Bitstream Vera license and SIL OFL. Downstream open source project font licensing from the days prior to SIL OFL (and to some degree even after that period) is a bit of a quagmire.
Item 2 is where the reserved font name declaration is located. I have been considering modification of the language here to permit forks to use “Hack” in the name, but not “Hack” alone for a forked typeface. We have bound our own hands in this language and would like to make/release some derivative typefaces from the Hack source with names such as “Hack Ligature”, “Hack ASCII”, “Hack ZeroSlash”, etc. This will also support other project teams who would like to associate their fork with the Hack upstream source by using Hack followed by a string that distinguishes it from the upstream source.
The impetus for the reserved font name issue is simply QA. We perform a great deal of manual testing prior to releases that cannot be fully automated in the current era of font development software. The exact build process that we use is the one that we have validated and want to support. One of my worries if we loosen this requirement (i.e. fully remove the reserved font name) is that we will be approached on the repository about all build issues assuming that we will be able to troubleshoot the issue for teams that elect to build with a different approach. There are numerous other ways to compile the fonts out there and the OpenType tables as well as the hinting on the fonts can, and in many cases likely will, change for those who do not appreciate these issues. It is a downside in the typeface software development area that is in need of repair. But it is a reality that we face.
Will wait for more feedback and then weigh in further.
On Aug 16, 2017, 8:23 AM -0400, wrote:
This License becomes null and void to the extent applicable to Fonts or Font Software that has been modified and is distributed under the "Bitstream Vera" names