Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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?!?
They didn't. However, I am not sure whether RMS's message can be considered as official position of the FSF. >> As far as I can see, the main argument against this license here on >> debian-legal was that the FSF (or RMS) had considered such licenses to >> be invalid. > > I don't think this is an accurate summary of the debian-legal > discussion on the topic. > > The main argument was that the license (GPLv2 + restrictions) is > self-contradictory and thus invalid. > This conclusion was *confirmed* by RMS, who basically brought the same > argument. However, I think the argument holds even if RMS and/or the > FSF change(s) his/their mind(s) afterwards, unless he/they bring(s) new > data to support his/their new opposite conclusion... As was already pointed out in the previous thread, this interpretation relies on that the "no further restrictions" clause applies to GPLv2 + restrictions, not to GPLv2 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] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
