Am Donnerstag, 31. Dezember 2009 10:54:40 schrieb Dave Crossland: > Hi > > 2009/12/31 Christoph Schäfer <christoph-schae...@gmx.de>: > > there is no copyright on legal texts
My apologies if this sounds overly aggressive, but I have been discussing these issues over and over again. It really helps to keep things separate ... > > Legal texts as published by governments - perhaps, such as in the USA. > > Legal texts as in literary works that discuss legal topics? Hardly. A license is not a discussion of a legal topic. An article in a law magazine would be. > > > Declaring content to be "not legally redistributable" is thus another > > proof of how poisoned the Open Source/Open Content movement has become. > > Fedora is one of the big distributions most commited to software > freedom, is strict about legal soundness, and is US based, so I think > this is appropriate if we aim to be an upstream for Fedora's fonts. I > believe one of the major contributions OFLB can make to type designers > is to make it easy for them to contribute fonts to the software > freedom community that meet the highest standards of libre licensing. Again, this is beside the point. If OFL or Fedora doesn't accept the license that's fine with me, but please stop spreading the message that the font is "not legally redistributable" because of its license. You're wrong, full stop. > > Similarly, although typeface designs have no copyright restrictions in > the US legal system, in Germany and UK they have 25 years of > restriction, so worldwide, we ought not to accept clones of typefaces > newer than 25 years. Why this distraction? I was referring to your allegation that the font is "not legally redistributable" because it uses a modified license, which is not true. Happy New Year! Christoph
