Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
Hi Josselin, On Sun, 31 May 2009 19:00:13 +0200 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Otherwise, it’s a simple license with a strong copyleft, which should be fine for Debian. Okay, thanks for your comment, I'll put it into main :) -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/iijmio-mail.jp http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
Hello, Dmitrijs! You wrote to debian-legal@lists.debian.org on Sun, 31 May 2009 18:58:04 +0100: 2009/5/31 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org: Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 ? 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a ?crit : ÿI've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. ÿYou can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html ÿPlease give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. For derived works: ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿNo one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿprogram name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. And for redistribution without modification: ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. This is a long standing tradition within TeX to prevent namespace collision. Back in the old days it was important that if you modify and release something and you are not the original author you have to change the name of the package such that you don't break the compatability with all the TeX documents in the wild. That's a noble goal but it doesn't make it DFSG-free. AFAIR the idea is that filenames are functional so a DFSG-free license cannot prohibit their change. This clause comes from (off top of my head) the LaTeX license LPPL just codified what was there long before. which FSF declared as GPL incompatible due to this renaming forcing clause. TeXLive is in Debian and a lot of it is license under Latex license so that bit is DFSG-free but the example above is self-contradicting. I think the author intended to use the Latex license instead. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses The Latex Project Public License 1.2 I hope most (la)tex packages have migrated to LPPL-1.3 long ago (though didn't check it). And LPPL-1.3 have dropped filename change clause after lngthy discussion on debian-legal. Having said that, there were some very important files with filename change clause in their licenses -- see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/01/msg00160.html for examples. I will be glad to hear that something has changed in the last five years but I somehow doubt it. Alexander Cherepanov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
In message 1243789213.18376.224.ca...@tomoyo, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit : I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html Please give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. For derived works: No one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a program name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. And for redistribution without modification: The Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. I've read Dmitrjs response, and it seems to me this should be covered by a trademark licence. Explicitly split the copyright and trademark grants, and you'll probably be fine. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit : I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html Please give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. For derived works: No one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a program name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. And for redistribution without modification: The Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. So if there are any changes, the name must be changed, and it must not be changed if there are no changes. For a regular computer program, that would imply iceweaselization, but for a font this seems reasonable: we have no practical reason to patch it in our packages, and most font systems make it easy to alias a font with another one so it’s fine for those who modify it. Otherwise, it’s a simple license with a strong copyleft, which should be fine for Debian. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
2009/5/31 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org: Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit : I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html Please give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. For derived works: No one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a program name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. And for redistribution without modification: The Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. This is a long standing tradition within TeX to prevent namespace collision. Back in the old days it was important that if you modify and release something and you are not the original author you have to change the name of the package such that you don't break the compatability with all the TeX documents in the wild. This clause comes from (off top of my head) the LaTeX license which FSF declared as GPL incompatible due to this renaming forcing clause. TeXLive is in Debian and a lot of it is license under Latex license so that bit is DFSG-free but the example above is self-contradicting. I think the author intended to use the Latex license instead. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses The Latex Project Public License 1.2 -- And my new disclaimer ITDODLLAS = I Think Disclaimers On Debian Legal List Are Silly -- With best regards Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima), Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
