The SIL Open Font License[0], version 1.0 states:
[PREAMBLE]
The OFL allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and
redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves.
[CONDITION1]
1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in
Standard or
Dear All,
The Gentium font (http://scripts.sil.org/gentium) has been re-released
under the SIL Open Font License (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL).
This is excellent news as there are few free/open-source fonts that
cover the Latin, Cyrillic and Greek Unicode blocks, and special
characters/symbols.
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
(rms and
other key members of the community including Jim Gettys from GNOME
already told us OFL 1.0 was free)
I seriously don't think[0] so. The mentioned violation of the DFSG also
applies to the GNU Freedoms.
Regards,
Daniel
[0]
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL
(rms and
other key members of the community including Jim Gettys from GNOME
already told us OFL 1.0 was free)
I seriously don't think[0] so. The mentioned violation of the DFSG also
applies to the GNU Freedoms.
Regards,
Daniel
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00337.html
Daniel Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I seriously don't think[0] so. The mentioned violation of the DFSG also
applies to the GNU Freedoms.
You think wrong. DFSG 1 does not require any piece of software to allow
commercial sale as an independent component.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL
To make it short, as Matthew wrote:
You think wrong. DFSG 1 does not require any piece of software to allow
commercial sale as an independent component.
is true, I agree.
My problem of understanding is/was: a work that is licensed under OSF
1.0 is not free as an individual component because I
Daniel Baumann wrote:
Intuitively, I've said that Debian can ship such 'partially'/'not
truly'-free works.
s/can/can't/
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
Arc wrote:
While Firefox itself is licensed under a free license, there's an issue
in the way the Mozilla foundation designed it to include their own
package system for extensions and themes.
Take Firefox 1.5 for example, I've had it for a few hours, downloaded a
few extensions..
Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The License is CeCILL. Two important clauses:
Agreement: means this Licensing Agreement, and any or all of its
subsequent versions.
Any or all Software distributed under a given version of the Agreement may
* Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-29 18:50]:
Nowhere is it stated that registration is a mandatory part of
getting the license.
It would seem that, once one person registers and downloads the
software, that one person may distribute the software in accordance
with the BSD
11 matches
Mail list logo
