Re: Liberation Font License revisited
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]
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:56:25 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: 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. I would say quite official... There have been cases in the past where RMS censored GNU developers' diverging opinions. E.g.: a GNU developer (Thomas Bushnell) was dismissed by RMS for having publicly spoken against the GFDL (see http://lwn.net/Articles/59147/ and http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussioni/2003-November/008465.html). [...] 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've already explained (in the cited old debian-legal thread) why I don't think this interpretation is backed by the actual GPLv2 text. 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? *If* my analysis is correct, we do not have *any* valid license to distribute (let alone modify) those fonts. Hence there may be legal troubles, namely copyright violation issues, in distributing them. This makes them unsuitable even for the non-free archive! One could say that the intention of Red Hat to grant a redistribution (and modification) permission is clear, but in fact it is *not* clear *at all*, being self-contradictory! So, once again, I don't think we have a valid license to redistribute (and/or modify) those fonts... As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpjxZ4k8a7PW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Liberation Font License revisited
Hello, I've spent some time on the Liberation font license mess [1], here are my results. Red Hat's Tom Callaway (who is responsible for dealing with such licensing issues) stated that according to the FSF the license was free but GPL-incompatible [2]. I contacted the FSF to further clarify on the alleged contradiction in the terms. The reply I got says that the FSF considers this to be a valid license: 'We believe it would have been far clearer if Red Hat had created, say, the Liberation Font License with their extra conditions. However, since they are the copyright holders, they are within their rights to do it the way they did.' This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right? Best regards, Hendrik Weimer [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg36584.html [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253774#c7 -- *** OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software for GNU/Linux and more *** *** http://www.osreviews.net/*** *** OS Reviews * Hendrik Weimer Phone: +49-711-81041666 *** *** Tiroler Str. 70 * 70329 Stuttgart * GERMANY [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:18:15 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: Hello, I've spent some time on the Liberation font license mess [1], Thanks for doing that! It is really appreciated. here are my results. Red Hat's Tom Callaway (who is responsible for dealing with such licensing issues) stated that according to the FSF the license was free but GPL-incompatible [2]. I contacted the FSF to further clarify on the alleged contradiction in the terms. The reply I got says that the FSF considers this to be a valid license: 'We believe it would have been far clearer if Red Hat had created, say, the Liberation Font License with their extra conditions. However, since they are the copyright holders, they are within their rights to do it the way they did.' It seems the FSF is becoming less credible everyday... :-( I think they are applying a double standard here: when the authors of a teTeX package add a restriction to the GNU GPL v2 [3], RMS says it can't be done because it's self-contradictory [4]; when Red Hat do the same, they are within their rights to do it the way they did... [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00298.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right? This makes this license acceptable for the *FSF*, which is a different organization. As far as the Debian Project is concerned, I cannot speak on its behalf because I am not a member (IANADD). My own personal opinion is explained in the thread that you yourself cited [1], hence I won't restate it here. [...] [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg36584.html [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253774#c7 My disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpQhW2Mq67fA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think they are applying a double standard here: when the authors of a teTeX package add a restriction to the GNU GPL v2 [3], RMS says it can't be done because it's self-contradictory [4]; when Red Hat do the same, they are within their rights to do it the way they did... [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00298.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? I did. This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right? This makes this license acceptable for the *FSF*, which is a different organization. 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. However, this seems not to be the case now, no matter whether the FSF changed their mind or not. Hendrik -- *** OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software for GNU/Linux and more *** *** http://www.osreviews.net/*** *** OS Reviews * Hendrik Weimer Phone: +49-711-81041666 *** *** Tiroler Str. 70 * 70329 Stuttgart * GERMANY [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
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?!? This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right? This makes this license acceptable for the *FSF*, which is a different organization. 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... However, this seems not to be the case now, no matter whether the FSF changed their mind or not. I would like to hear them explain *why* the two cases (which seem basically identical to me) get two opposite conclusions from them. Could they elaborate? Or else, if they changed their minds about the teTeX case, I would like to hear them explain *why* they did. I'm really puzzled. Anyway, my disclaimers still hold: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpnrQwAQUz8m.pgp Description: PGP signature
