On Tue, Oct 17, 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > I've taken a look but I see no direct indication that this file was used > without a due licence. I can contact upstream to clarify this, but until > that time I'm inclined to downgrade the bug. > > E.g. the png images included with the same software do not have licencing > information incorportated into the file. We don't remove them, barring > other information we assume that they share the global licence of the > product.
I agree with the fact that one can (and usually does) make a good faith assumption that the images shipped with the software were either created by the author or properly licensed unless reasonable evidence proves that it was not the case. However, I do not see how anyone in their right mind could assume that the software author got permission from Microsoft, Adobe or Bigelow & Holmes to relicense a Lucida font under the GPL. See for instance http://tug.org/store/lucida/lucida-license-individual.txt for an idea of the font's designers' stance on copyrights, trademarks and othr IP rights. Regards, -- Sam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
