Re: License question: GPL+Exception

2007-05-13 Thread Ben Finney
"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence > >as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html > > I think you're wrong here ... (certa

Re: License question: GPL+Exception

2007-05-13 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:04:09 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes [...] > >The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as > >permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should > >use the plain G

Re: License question: GPL+Exception

2007-05-13 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: > You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights > granted by the GPL*. But there are already such rest

Re: License question: GPL+Exception

2007-05-13 Thread MJ Ray
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: > > You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights > > granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you > > cannot remove them because you are not th

Re: License question: GPL+Exception

2007-05-12 Thread Michael Poole
Wesley J. Landaker writes: > On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: >> You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights >> granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you >> cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. >

Re: License question: GPL+Exception

2007-05-12 Thread Wesley J. Landaker
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote: > You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights > granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you > cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder. > Hence you cannot comply with the

Re: License question: GPL+Exception

2007-05-12 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:55:23 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because > > it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional > > restrictions). > > > > What do

Re: License question: GPL+Exception

2007-05-12 Thread Wesley J. Landaker
On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote: > Mmmmh, does the following "exception" constitute an additional > restriction with respect to the GNU GPL v2? > > | (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the > | Software in a physical product must provide you

Re: License question: GPL+Exception

2007-05-12 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:52:05 +0100 (BST) Alan Baghumian wrote: [...] > You can find the exact license here: > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/packages/ttf-liberation/trunk/debian/copyright?op=file&rev=0&sc=0 Mmmmh, does the following "exception" constitute an additional restriction with res

License question: GPL+Exception

2007-05-12 Thread Alan Baghumian
Hi, I'm a member of the font packaging team. Red Hat recently has released a set of fonts under the GPL with an exception about it's trademarks. This fonts can cover the lack of Arial, Times and Courier fonts. We started our work to package them for Debian but noticed that's better to ask debian-