Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
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, let's focus on more important stuff (if there is any). 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 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 and is *not* DFSG-free. I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Because all of the Reserved Font Names will have been used for the font in the ancestor version tree of the software somewhere, they are all the name of the original software - at different points in its development. I agree that trademark law is a better venue for this sort of restriction, and I have argued as much on the OFL list. But I don't think this quirk makes the license non-free. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. [...] As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. Do you have a proposed definition? What sort of things do you suggest some people might consider documents and others not? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
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, I see what you mean. OK, so it seems that DFSG#4 allows this, even though I'm not particularly happy that it does... However, it is a stupid condition, because it does nothing to stop an unrelated font calling itself MyFont, ChangedFont or EnhanceFont. Agreed, definitely. Names should be controlled by trademark if one feels strongly enough Indeed (and in a DFSG-free manner, please!). -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpnWXOzhp7ID.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
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 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 and is *not* DFSG-free. I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Because all of the Reserved Font Names will have been used for the font in the ancestor version tree of the software somewhere, they are all the name of the original software - at different points in its development. 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? [...] As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. Do you have a proposed definition? What sort of things do you suggest some people might consider documents and others not? I don't have one, since I think that clearly drawing lines to tell various software categories apart is really hard. This discussion has showed up many times on debian-legal, at least since the GFDL times (I think it was 2002 or 2003): I believe there are no clearcut boundaries between documents, programs, images, audio/video works, and so forth. They can be classified in most cases, but the boundaries are always blurred. Hence defining what a document is, turns out to be hard. P.S.: please reply to the list only, as I didn't asked to be placed in the To: (or Cc:) field... thanks. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpTjIzENEHra.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
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 are confusing the idea with *registering* a trademark, which is an assurance of trademark protection (it provides a formal means of avoiding conflict and establishing precedence), but it isn't required for trademark protection. In fact, this is exactly like post-1978 US copyright law (and the Berne Convention, IIRC): copyright protection applies from the moment of creation. Registration is a formality, which may make it easier to defend a copyright, but does not change the copyright status. Trademark is similar. We have separate marks for an (unregistered) trademark TM and a registered one (R). It's definitely a restriction over and above trademark law. (I don't think it makes the license non-free, though.) So, in fact, it is NOT a restriction over and above trademark law. Of course, IANAL, but I'm pretty darned certain of this. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:47:32 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2. I welcome any comments on my reasoning. As you might expect from my summary http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general I agree with most of that reasoning, Thanks for the URL. apart from: [...] Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies. Bad: is anonymous publication disallowed? I don't think it matters. Pseudonymous publication seems possible, but we must watch out for developments on this uncertainty. Well, does a Published by anonymous statement crearly and legibly identify you as the publisher ? I really doubt... Hence, I'm not so sure that anonymous publication is possible. As for pseudonymous publication (which is something different, let's remember), I don't know whether a Published by BlackStar statement satifies the clause... maybe, or maybe not... more probably not... [...] If the Modified Version includes Ancillary Sections that contain no=20 material copied from the Work, you may at your option designate some=20 or all of these sections as invariant. Kills copyleft: anyone can add Invariant Sections to a GFDLed work No, it's still copyleft, because it's still distributable under the same licence. However, it can go non-free, because FDL is not necessarily free. Indeed, the copyleft means that the Invariant Section propaganda is always present. It's a copyleft, just not a sort that helps free software. Does copyleft mean that modified versions must stay under the same license? Or does it mean that no additional restrictions may be placed on modified versions? I think that the keystone of copyleft is the latter, not the former. Or otherwise the LGPL would *not* be a (weak) copyleft license, as it has a conversion-to-GPL clause. If you consider a GFDLed work with no Invariant Sections, it's non-free because of the other issues with the license, *but* it does not include any large chunk of unmodifiable and unremovable content. If you modify that work and add some large Invariant Sections, you obtain a work with additional restrictions, since its Invariant Sections cannot be further modified, nor removed. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp3ofQkABMCu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
On 12/10/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, does a Published by anonymous statement crearly and legibly identify you as the publisher ? I really doubt... Hence, I'm not so sure that anonymous publication is possible. As for pseudonymous publication (which is something different, let's remember), I don't know whether a Published by BlackStar statement satifies the clause... maybe, or maybe not... more probably not... If 'BlackStar' can be traced easily to a person, then I suppose it does. e.g. if the work is distributed among a small group where one of them has that as a nickname or something. Or if the work actually lists some contact details - phone, post, email, etc. [...] If the Modified Version includes Ancillary Sections that contain no=20 material copied from the Work, you may at your option designate some=20 or all of these sections as invariant. Kills copyleft: anyone can add Invariant Sections to a GFDLed work No, it's still copyleft, because it's still distributable under the same licence. However, it can go non-free, because FDL is not necessarily free. Indeed, the copyleft means that the Invariant Section propaganda is always present. It's a copyleft, just not a sort that helps free software. Does copyleft mean that modified versions must stay under the same license? Or does it mean that no additional restrictions may be placed on modified versions? I think that the keystone of copyleft is the latter, not the former. Or otherwise the LGPL would *not* be a (weak) copyleft license, as it has a conversion-to-GPL clause. Um, the GPL is *more* restrictive than the LGPL. So modified versions can *remove* the permission to link with proprietary software. (I realise what you mean, but LGPL-GPL isn't the best example...) -- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
