On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 08:17:13AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 08:00:00AM +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > No, we should use the liberation fonts, which are designed to replace
> > > the MS fonts.
> >
> > Have their licensing issues been solved?
>
> Which ones ?
1. It claims to use GPLv2, yet it has an incompatible anti-Tivo clause; it's
debatable whether it's DFSG-free. I would say it isn't, but it's not up to
me to decide.
The clause is clearly marked as an "exception", so, while obviously
non-GPL-compatible, it's a valid license, distributable and so on.
2. It has a separate rename clause, where making ANY modification, even as
small as adding a debian/ dir, requires you to drop the "Liberation" name.
There's no exception to the GPL which would allow distribution while that
clause is there...
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
