On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: > So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying in exchange for > distributing the non-free fonts on GNOME's FTP site, Bitstream will > ultimately release the fonts under a DFSG-free[1] license?
As far as I can tell, the vera fonts are not available from gnome's
ftp site yet. [Feel free to provide linkage to demonstrate otherwise.]
> If so, where did you get this information?
The press release[2] is fairly clear that Bitstream is planning on
releasing the fonts under a license that will fulfill DFSG #1:
The Bitstream Vera fonts will be available for free copying and
redistribution and can be modified as long as the font name is
changed. The fonts cannot be packaged by themselves for sale, but
can be sold with any software. The GNOME Foundation will
incorporate the fonts into future GNOME releases, giving end users
of all levels, as well as GNOME developers, the advanced display
capabilities they offer.
Of course, until the license is finalized, we're just discussing the
freeness of the draft license, not the freeness of any specific
package that may be placed under such a license. That is, unless
Bitstream has finalized the license vera is being released under, the
ITP (#182212) will have to wait.
> so perhaps it is more accurate to describe Bitstream's desire as
> seeking compliance with the DFSG or OSD than software freedom.
Could you please be a bit more specific as to why you see the draft
license encumbering your freedom to do with the fonts as you wish? I'm
not sure I follow your argument about the software (well, fonts in
this case) being DFSG "free" but not being Free Software.
Don Armstrong
1:
http://www.bitstream.com/categories/news/press/2003_bitstream/012203_gnome.htm
--
Tell me something interesting about yourself.
Lie if you have to.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/archives/batch20.php
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgptoOO4HwTcf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
