On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 20:29 +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 22/01/2008, Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The license in this case is GPL + extra bits. The text of the license > > says licensees may not add extra restrictions. But I still have to pass > > it on under the license I received it - GPL + bits - because without > > standing in copyright, or the right to sub-license, I can't change the > > license on the work. > > The text of the license says licensees may not add extra restrictions > other than those in the license, and if there are other restrictions > of any kind (typically patent ones) then you can't distribute the work > at all. > > That means, you can't redistribute the red hat fonts to me. But I can > get them from Red Hat myself, and change them privately, whereas I > can't change the Microsoft ones privately and why I initially > recommend doing so to someone :-)
I don't know where your second paragraph comes from - I'm perfectly entitled to distribute the Red Hat fonts to you. You don't get the license from me; you get it from Red Hat - it's clear on that (to me, at least, sec.6 - GPLv3 is even more explicit on this point, no sublicenses). The GPL doesn't require or use a sublicense, you don't receive a license from the person who gave you the software - you get it from the copyright holder. Given they are the licensors, it doesn't matter what restrictions they append to the license in terms of internal consistency; the license text is silent on the matter as far as I can see. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
