Re: Review of license
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:25:20 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: [ Please keep me in the CC since I am not subscribed to -legal ] Done. I was recently asked to sponsor an upload of a package that carries the below license. Is this license acceptable for main? [...] The license you quoted seems to be a modified variant of the Artistic License v1.0 [1]. Besides some cosmetic changes, the main differences are: * in sub-paragraph 4(c), which is however not much important since the DFSG-free option is 4(b), I think * in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, where some exceptions specific to language interpreters were dropped: I don't think that the dropped parts were essential for compliance with the DFSG * paragraph 8 of the Artistic License was dropped entirely: again, I don't think its presence was essential for compliance with the DFSG [1] /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic In summary, I don't see anything that could make this license less DFSG-compliant than the Artistic License v1.0. As far as the original Artistic License v1.0 is concerned, I personally don't like it, and I would recommend against its adoption, but it has been considered acceptable for main for a long time and I don't see any clear non-freeness in it... This is my opinion, let's wait for other debian-legal participants to express theirs... My usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpGPRHkTYjkc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:41:08 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? I did. And how did they explain the difference in their conclusions?!? They didn't. However, I am not sure whether RMS's message can be considered as official position of the FSF. As far as I can see, the main argument against this license here on debian-legal was that the FSF (or RMS) had considered such licenses to be invalid. I don't think this is an accurate summary of the debian-legal discussion on the topic. The main argument was that the license (GPLv2 + restrictions) is self-contradictory and thus invalid. This conclusion was *confirmed* by RMS, who basically brought the same argument. However, I think the argument holds even if RMS and/or the FSF change(s) his/their mind(s) afterwards, unless he/they bring(s) new data to support his/their new opposite conclusion... As was already pointed out in the previous thread, this interpretation relies on that the no further restrictions clause applies to GPLv2 + restrictions, not to GPLv2 alone. I fully agree with you that the Liberation Font license is sub-optimal, however I do not see a scenario where distribution of the fonts by Debian led to legal trouble or a violation of the DFSG. Can you think of such a situation? Hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:56:25 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:41:08 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? I did. And how did they explain the difference in their conclusions?!? They didn't. However, I am not sure whether RMS's message can be considered as official position of the FSF. I would say quite official... There have been cases in the past where RMS censored GNU developers' diverging opinions. E.g.: a GNU developer (Thomas Bushnell) was dismissed by RMS for having publicly spoken against the GFDL (see http://lwn.net/Articles/59147/ and http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussioni/2003-November/008465.html). [...] The main argument was that the license (GPLv2 + restrictions) is self-contradictory and thus invalid. This conclusion was *confirmed* by RMS, who basically brought the same argument. However, I think the argument holds even if RMS and/or the FSF change(s) his/their mind(s) afterwards, unless he/they bring(s) new data to support his/their new opposite conclusion... As was already pointed out in the previous thread, this interpretation relies on that the no further restrictions clause applies to GPLv2 + restrictions, not to GPLv2 alone. I've already explained (in the cited old debian-legal thread) why I don't think this interpretation is backed by the actual GPLv2 text. I fully agree with you that the Liberation Font license is sub-optimal, however I do not see a scenario where distribution of the fonts by Debian led to legal trouble or a violation of the DFSG. Can you think of such a situation? *If* my analysis is correct, we do not have *any* valid license to distribute (let alone modify) those fonts. Hence there may be legal troubles, namely copyright violation issues, in distributing them. This makes them unsuitable even for the non-free archive! One could say that the intention of Red Hat to grant a redistribution (and modification) permission is clear, but in fact it is *not* clear *at all*, being self-contradictory! So, once again, I don't think we have a valid license to redistribute (and/or modify) those fonts... As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpjxZ4k8a7PW.pgp Description: PGP signature
