Vincent Lhote deb...@vincent.lhote.name writes:
I was pointed to a font and thought it would be a fine addition to
Debian. But the text of its license makes me wonder if it can be
included.
Thank you for taking software freedom seriously!
Debian is an entirely free-software operating system,
Dear Debian legal team,
I was pointed to a font and thought it would be a fine addition to
Debian. But the text of its license makes me wonder if it can be
included. I did some search, and I think it can be included, at least in
non-free. I was wondering if the no derivative clause would prevent
On 13304 March 1977, Vincent Lhote wrote:
Conditions of use
You may:
-Install the fonts on as many devices as you wish.
-Distribute the fonts to anyone you wish.
-Use the fonts in any commercial or non-commercial document.
-Save the fonts in a format that would best fit your purposes.
You
Hello,
I am considering to package a font, its license is as follows:
By installing this Font You accept all the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
Copyright (c) 2010 by King Fahd Glorious Quran Printing Complex
(KFGQPC), AlMadinah AlMunawarrah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. All Rights
Hi!
Am 09.05.2011 15:09, schrieb أحمد المحمودي:
Permission is hereby granted, Free of Cost, to any person obtaining a
copy of this Font accompanying this license, the rights to Use, Copy,
Distribute, subject to the following conditions:
[..]
Is that acceptable in Debian non-free ?
That
Le Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:09:15PM +0200, أحمد المحمودي a écrit :
1.The Font Software cannot be Sold, Modified, Altered, Translated,
Reverse Engineered, Decompiled, Disassembled, Reproduced or Attempted to
discover the Source Code of this Font in no means.
Dear Ahmed,
this is very
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 @
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
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
Hi,
I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package.
Its license, IPA Font License is OSI approved, but it doesn't mean
equal to DFSG-Free. So, I'd like to ask you it is DFSG-Free or not.
It is TeX-like license and has some restriction for use its name for
derivatives and how to deal
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
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
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
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
Hello,
I've spent some time on the Liberation font license mess [1], here are
my results. Red Hat's Tom Callaway (who is responsible for dealing
with such licensing issues) stated that according to the FSF the
license was free but GPL-incompatible [2]. I contacted the FSF to
further clarify
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:18:15 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote:
Hello,
I've spent some time on the Liberation font license mess [1],
Thanks for doing that!
It is really appreciated.
here are
my results. Red Hat's Tom Callaway (who is responsible for dealing
with such licensing issues) stated
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think they are applying a double standard here: when the authors of a
teTeX package add a restriction to the GNU GPL v2 [3], RMS says it
can't be done because it's self-contradictory [4]; when Red Hat do the
same, they are within their rights to do
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?!?
This should make this license
Paul Wise wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 1:17 PM, Mauro Lizaur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So should the ttf-breip font keep in main or should be moved to non-free?
Sorry for my bad english, i hope you understand what i am asking here
Gentium[1] and other SIL OFL licenced fonts have been accepted
On Jan 15, 2008 7:13 PM, Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, Mauro, can you please make sure you also ship in your package the
upstream font source and documentation available on
http://stalefries.googlepages.com/fontsbreip
I'd like to add that only the font source should be
Hello There,
I recently adopted and packaged the font ttf-breip which is already
on the debian repositories on the main section.
My sponsor was in doubt about the licence of the font (SIL), and
double-checked if its dsfg-free or not with other DD's and some of
them told her it was free and some
On Jan 15, 2008 1:17 PM, Mauro Lizaur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So should the ttf-breip font keep in main or should be moved to non-free?
Sorry for my bad english, i hope you understand what i am asking here
Gentium[1] and other SIL OFL licenced fonts have been accepted into
Debian main, so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00161.html and the
reduction in mdgrams until now, for example.
Or maybe the fact that in that period I changed my job, home and city.
I apologize if I have not been able to spend more time answering your
mails here (it
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize if I have not been able to spend more time answering your
mails here (it is starting to get boring after a few years), I promise I
will do better in the future.
Please, don't bother unless you can post something justified, instead of
baseless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That says little itself: far more
obviously DFSG-busting licences have snuck into debian in the past!
Yes and at times some debian-legal contributors have been wrong or their
analysis voted against.
AFAIK the ftpmaster team still decides what goes in or not.
Correct.
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
As explained repeatedly, users should not have to configure font
substitution for every new font
Mmm, What?
The configuration of external font substitution systems like
fontconfig are outside the scope of the license.
See the
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray is a funny character with extreme opinions about what the DFSG
means and most people do not take him seriously...
Wow, what a lot of evidence supplied in that post(!)
DFSG-revisionist Marco d'Itri posts much nonsense, from misattributed
quotes, to
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:57:28 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
[...] Ever wondered why we had so few free/open fonts until there
was a good way to reach out to the font designer community with
something which makes sense to them?
Yes. I felt it
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ Ray is a funny character with extreme opinions about what the DFSG
means and most people do not take him seriously...
Until you've got some data to back it, please don't make claims about
what most people think of a particular person.
--
\
I agree: both GNU GPL v2 and Expat licenses could be used for fonts.
We should *not* draft a new license for every community we want to
reach, or otherwise the Free Software pool would get more and more
balkanized...
It would be interesting is Nicolas can (briefly) summarize in what OFL
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
cannot legally define breaking,
fixing, and enhancing, as they mostly depend on the point of view!).
[...]
OK, license comments follow.
---
SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1 - 26 February 2007
Christian Perrier wrote:
[...]
Quoting Nicolas Spalinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi everyone,
I think this will be of interest to the Debian maintainers on this list.
The Open Font License 1.1 is now released.
What do the debian-legal people think about it?
I have not followed
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:37:18 +0100 Christian Perrier wrote:
(please keep the crossposting.
[...]
Done.
Quoting Nicolas Spalinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi everyone,
I think this will be of interest to the Debian maintainers on this
list.
The Open Font License 1.1 is now
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
just can't open the list
right now)
Quoting Nicolas Spalinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi everyone,
I think this will be of interest to the Debian maintainers on this list.
The Open Font License 1.1 is now released.
What do the debian-legal people think about it?
I have not followed
On 12/11/06 14:02, Nick Phillips wrote:
On 12/12/2006, at 10:50 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:43:57 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as
the original software is acceptable.
I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of
Reserved
Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the
license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction.
It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list
for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's
Terry Hancock wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 + MJ Ray wrote:
This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the
original software is acceptable.
I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved
Font Names goes beyond
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In summary, can we conclude that works solely released under the terms
of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their
Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the
work?
You two
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In summary, can we conclude that works solely released under the terms
of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their
Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the
work?
You two obviously do, but I keep disagreeing from
Francesco Poli wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve
an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:38:07 + Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that
each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can
reserve an
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forbidding reuse of a the name of the original software is OK,
forbidding an arbitrary name is not.
Don't you agree with me that this goes beyond what is allowed
(again, as a compromise!) by DFSG#4 ?
Please don't ask questions in the negative.
I agree
solely released under the terms
of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their
Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the
work?
--
But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve
an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:32:24 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that
each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder
Francesco Poli wrote:
I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names
can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the
Font Software.
Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my
concerns go away?
There is no such clause.
Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names
can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the
Font Software.
Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my
concerns go away?
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:21:19 + Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font
Names can only become such by being names used in some ancestor
version of the Font Software.
Could you please elaborate and show the
On 12/12/2006, at 10:50 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve
an arbitrary list of Font Names, the
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the
license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction.
It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list
for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's not a freeness issue,
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:11:11 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Is this kind of /cumulative/ name-change requirement allowed by
DFSG#4?
We need copyright permission for each contributing work, so I can't
see how we allow DFSG4 and not allow this.
Ah,
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:02:55 +0800 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Actually, DFSG#4 states, in part:
| The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
| version number from the original software.
This means that forbidding derived works to
Gervase Markham wrote:
But the names aren't required to be trademarked.
That sentence is nonsense in legal terms: there is no such thing as
trademarking a name. A name becomes a trademark when you use it as
one. Putting it in a list of reserved font names is one way of doing that.
I think you
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] Just because it's fun to argue, though [...]
I think it's extremely unfunny to have off-topic angels-on-pinhead debates
looping away. If anything on-topic comes out of this subthread, please
summarise it in a new subthread.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Eugene cannot use the name ChangedFont, because it's the name of
the work he's modifying
- neither can Eugene use the name MyFont, because it's the name of
the work ChangedFont is based on
- Eugene calls his font EnhancedFont
*
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006
[...]
1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components,
in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
This restriction does *not* fail the DFSG (because DFSG#1
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:36:18 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006
[...]
[...]
3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved
Font Name(s) unless [...]
I believe
.
This is why, for example, the GPL is a bad font license, because if read
technically, it would force all documents written with it to be
released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they
usually apply a similar additional exemption.
Yes, the FSF has their font
) file does not
cause the license to bind the document.
Yes.
This is why, for example, the GPL is a bad font license, because if read
technically, it would force all documents written with it to be
released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they
usually apply a similar
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new
font (and not much else beyond that).
True.
The copyleft on the font doesn't bind the program for any use I can
imagine. Not because of the document exemption, but because of this:
can be
Rights Reserved.
This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
This license is copied below, and is also available with a FAQ at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
---
SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15
On 12/6/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
This license is copied below, and is also available with a FAQ at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
---
SIL OPEN FONT
:
[...]
---
SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006
---
[...]
1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components,
in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
This restriction does *not* fail
font license, because if read
technically, it would force all documents written with it to be
released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they
usually apply a similar additional exemption.
For font users, I would argue that document is a well-known term. It
means you can
is a bad font license, because if read
technically, it would force all documents written with it to be
released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they
usually apply a similar additional exemption.
Yes, the FSF has their font exemption.
For font users, I would argue
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs
or misfeatures in the font?
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
On Jan 30, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
You do, of course, mean preserve _incorrect_ rendering of documents ;-)
Yes.
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Jan 30, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
You do, of course, mean preserve _incorrect_ rendering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs
or misfeatures in the font?
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To
[snip]
On the matter of freeness of software licensed under the OFL:
3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is
granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction applies to all
references stored in
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:00:04 +0100 Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Users who install derivatives (Modified Versions) on their systems
should not see any of the original names (Reserved Font Names) in
their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams,
documents that refer to a particular
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't agree that this clause is DFSG-free.
It says that the name of an augmented font cannot *include* the term
STIX or *any similar* term.
That is significantly broader than what is allowed by DFGS#4, which
states (in part):
Your understanding of the DFSG is well
I was approached a while ago to make a few comments on the stix font
license and its possible suitability for inclusion in Debian.
Obviously since I'm not an ftpmaster the comments were only my own
opinion, but just in case the issue comes up again I've attached my
analysis to this message along
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
state among other:
[...]
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
itself.
[...]
(see the full license at
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
state among other:
[...]
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
itself.
[...]
(see
Måns Rullgård wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
state among other:
[...]
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
olive wrote:
Does the fact that the fonts cannot be sold separatly is compatible with
the DFSG?
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling [...] the software as a component of an AGGREGATE SOFTWARE
DISTRIBUTION containing programs from several different sources.
Francesco Poli wrote:
For instance, names such as STIX++, STIXng, newSTIX, STIXER, STICS,
STHIX, and so forth, are banned by the above clause, but they are
*different* from the original name, and thus comply with the maximum
DFSG-allowed restriction on names.
OTOH, were STIX a trademark
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:47:16 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
4. If the Fonts are augmented pursuant to Section 3(b), the name
used to denote the resulting fonts set shall not include the
term ___STIX___ or any similar term, and any distribution or
sale of the resulting
olive wrote:
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
state among other:
[...]
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
itself.
[...]
(see the full license at
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:47:16 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
4. If the Fonts are augmented pursuant to Section 3(b), the name
used to denote the resulting fonts set shall not include the
term ___STIX___ or any similar term, and any
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:09:43 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
My statement applies to section 5 which you elided, not section 4,
which I didn't even bother to address (beyond the part which gets
addressed in section 5.)
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding!
I thought you were referring to both
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray wrote:
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All the details are available at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
The page is not very accessible because [...]
Sorry about that small design problem, we'll be fixing that bit of the
..css soon.
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit on why you think the verbatim copy only is
problematic?
It renders the license text non-free.
The classic use case is the following: If at some point new people at SIL
want to make a revised version of the license, it will be technically
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Important side issue:
No modification of the license is permitted, only verbatim copy is
allowed.
Don't do this. Marking license texts as verbatim copy only is a bad habit
and I encourage people not to.
You want something more like the following:
The OFL license
MJ Ray wrote:
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All the details are available at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
The page is not very accessible because you set color without
a background-color (set both or preferably neither, please)
and you seem to be using 8pt body text (ow). It's
[snip]
We've got font debs ready to go.
Please use non-reserved font names, so that Debian is allowed to add
missing glyphs to the fonts.
Hi,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
The idea behind using reserved font names is to avoid conflicting
namespace between upstream and the
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
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/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current Open Font License appears to have excessive restrictions
upon the names of modified works. The Gentium font licence in particular
reserves these terms:
While this may be annoying, I can't see why it should not be DFSG-free.
--
ciao,
Marco
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
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
