On Tuesday, Sep 3, 2002, at 01:44 US/Eastern, J.B. Nicholson-Owens
wrote:
This font may not be distributed with commercial applications.
Released
under the terms of the Gnu Public License, www.gnu.org
That notice has many problems, the least of which being said license
does not exist. (GNU General Public License...). More importantly, as
you noted, it contradicts itself.
Is this just another case of
confusing the term "commercial" with "proprietary"?
Doesn't matter --- DFSG-free software can't care what it is distributed
alongside with.
Is this a problem? I'm not sure from reading the license exactly what
"other materials" includes.
This is strait from the good BSD license. It is OK. Debian's other
materials include, at least, /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright
Other fonts from this site have problems too. They all have a text
file
that says the font is in the public domain and yet the "[d]esign and
data"
copyright are held by various organizations. The copyright notice uses
"(C)" which might carry no legal weight, but it still seems
contradictory to
me. No terms allowing distribution or modification are listed.
I think what he's saying in that file is he took Monotype's (for
example) fonts and twiddled them some.
Asimov: the font file contains the closest thing to a license but does
not
grant permission for modification:
Another friendly font from Allen R. Walden. UNPROTECTED - Please
distribute freely.
I think he's trying to say "I disclaim all copyright interest in this
file," "I release this to the public domain," or something like that.
Maybe an email to the author will get it clarified.
Alphamack: No distribution on "CD-Roms"
Guess we'll have to switch to DVDs ;-)
The list goes on, but my patience in finding suitable fonts for Debian
does
not.
I can understand why. At least your turned up one, maybe two fonts...
