In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco
Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I think that requiring a credit at least as prominent as the credits
for the other contributing authors for a small contribution is
requiring excessive credit.
That's why I consider this clause as a non-free restriction.
As I
MJ Ray wrote:
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Many other key reviewers [namedrops] explained that the name change
requirement is a desirable feature for fonts and that so-called
ready-to-eat derivatives are problematic. A branch is something
different by definition and it should identify itself as
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Back in summer 2006, there was a thread regarding the inclusion of Sun's
Java under the DLJ in Debian's non-free area on its FTP site.
Questions about the license were raised at that time. In my
then-capacity as president of SPI, I asked SPI's attorney
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:55:07 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco
Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I think that requiring a credit at least as prominent as the credits
for the other contributing authors for a small contribution is
requiring excessive credit.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:02:36 +0100 Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
[...]
A branch is something
different by definition and it should identify itself as such and not
masquerade itself as something else to the user. The font name
protection is a key feature of the OFL to guaranty artistic integrity
5 matches
Mail list logo
