Am Mittwoch, 10. März 2010 22:56:54 schrieb Khaled Hosny:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:51:51PM -0600, Barry Schwartz wrote:
Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org skribis:
But how OFLB is going to fix this, I don't think you are suggesting
that we (OFLB community, whatever it means) rewrite
Hi Khaled,
Am Donnerstag, 11. März 2010 06:23:51 schrieb Khaled Hosny:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:38:43PM +0100, Christoph Schäfer wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 10. März 2010 22:56:54 schrieb Khaled Hosny:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:51:51PM -0600, Barry Schwartz wrote:
Khaled Hosny khaledho
Am Freitag, 1. Januar 2010 07:32:49 schrieb Barry Schwartz:
Christoph Schäfer christoph-schae...@gmx.de skribis:
Hi Dave,
in other circumstances I'd enjoy a detailed discussion, but a dictum
stating a font is not legally redistributable simply because the
creator uses a modified license
Am Donnerstag, 31. Dezember 2009 09:53:00 schrieb Dave Crossland:
2009/12/30 Jon Phillips j...@rejon.org:
weird, did anyone email them to try and get them to use OFL? last
thing we need is more fragmentation.
Actually, since SIL holds the copyright to the SIL OFL license text,
and does not
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
Hi Dave,
in other circumstances I'd enjoy a detailed discussion, but a dictum stating a
font is not legally redistributable simply because the creator uses a
modified license defies not only common sense, but also the spirit of open
licensing.
snip
A license is not a discussion of a legal
