(reproducing my email response here)

I'm puzzled as to why the 3-clause BSD license is an issue here.

Both licenses:- allow unlimited use (including commercial)- require some level of attribution- disallow use of the author's name to promote works based on the licensed material without permission- disclaim liability http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clausehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

In fact, if you look at the *text* of CC-BY, which is much more involved than the very simple language of the BSD license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Attribution.

   1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

      1. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
         
         1. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);
         2. a copyright notice;
         3. a notice that refers to this Public License;
         4. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;
         5. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;
      2. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and
      3. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.
   2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.
   3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.
   4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.

Your obligation under CC-BY is still that you must retain the copyright, etc, but you're *further* required to do so "in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor", and assorted other restrictions, rather than the simpler terms in BSD.
I'd rather not re-license something I've released under an incredibly simple and straightforward license under something much more complicated.  The CC-BY terms are longer, more complex, and impose stronger limitations on what users of the work can do (which is not something I wish to do).

However, given the simplicity of the font content, the fact that he made a number of significant changes (relative to the tiny size of the work), the fact that to the best of my understanding there's limited protection for the content of bitmap fonts under US copyright law anyway (though I'm not a lawyer and not offering legal advice), I have absolutely no objection if Robey would like to distribute his font under different terms than I distributed mine.