Don Armstrong writes: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: > > I asked if my understanding of the exchange was correct--GNOME > > distributes Bitstream's non-free Vera fonts and in exchange Bitstream > > eventually supplies DFSG-free software. > > You're asking the wrong people then, since (as far as I know) none of > -legal were involved in the bargaining, we can't answer that question.
I do not think you should expect any release of software from Bitstream. I haven't heard of any promises from them in that regard. The fonts are available under the current beta license, and will be available under the license labelled as a draft, in about a month. > > "DFSG-free" is a different term I understand to refer to the Debian > > Free Software Guidelines. > > That's precisely my question. Why does the inability to sell these > fonts alone make them not Free Software (while they remain DFSG "free")? I don't know, but I have heard a rumor that not only does RMS not like the beta license, he doesn't like the draft license either. Maybe he'll change his definition of free software again? -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A government does enough Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | wrong to offset what it 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right. Better that Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | it should do less.
