On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 06:03:12PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> > I think something like the LPPL would merely do the trick. Modifying the
> > font would be allowed, but would also require a name change.
>
> After looking over the LPPL, it looks like it would do the job. Do you know
> of any pre
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:43:06PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I think something like the LPPL would merely do the trick. Modifying the
> font would be allowed, but would also require a name change.
After looking over the LPPL, it looks like it would do the job. Do you know
of any precedent
Le mer 14/08/2002 à 20:48, Ben Armstrong a écrit :
> I'd like to educate about DFSG-free licensing. Unfortunately, it's going to
> be rough sledding unless I can find a license that is likely to address the
> problems fontographers typically face when deciding how to license their
> work (like: "
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 11:35:30PM +0200, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:16:14PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > [1] I have been told that the OpenOffice fonts are not free and were
> > pulled from CVS a short while ago. This puts ttf-openoffice
> > into quest
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:16:14PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
>
> [1] I have been told that the OpenOffice fonts are not free and were
> pulled from CVS a short while ago. This puts ttf-openoffice
> into question and any other package that contains a font included
> in ttf-openoffice
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:36:45PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 12:45:06PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > Ben> "How am I going to deal with it when someone changes my font to
> > Ben> something ugly and it reflects poorly on my skills as a
> > Ben> fontographer?"
>
> > In
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 12:45:06PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Ben> "How am I going to deal with it when someone changes my font to
> Ben> something ugly and it reflects poorly on my skills as a
> Ben> fontographer?"
> In that context, it is part of the rationale for the Q license,
> AFAIK. (R
Ben> "How am I going to deal with it when someone changes my font to
Ben> something ugly and it reflects poorly on my skills as a
Ben> fontographer?"
How is this at all different from the same question asked about
program source code?
In that context, it is part of the rationale for the Q licens
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 04:54:37PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> For the author of ttf-larabie-*, i tried that when i made these
> packages. The licence we got does NOT fulfill all DFSG requirements, but
> is already very liberate. I don't think we'll get further than that.
> So please don't press
> Now would be a really good time for people to email authors of decent
> TrueType freeware fonts to see if they can be convinced to put their fonts
> under a DFSG-free license if anyone is interested in doing that.
For the author of ttf-larabie-*, i tried that when i made these
packages. The lice
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:16:14PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> So now, the list of packages in violation of non-free font licenses:
...
> feh
> - contains 'helmetr' (Sun)[1]
>
> gozer
> - contains 'helmetr' (Sun)[1]
...
> xplanet
> - contains 'helmetr' (Sun)[1]
...
> Footnotes:
...
> [1] I have
11 matches
Mail list logo
