Rogério Brito <rbr...@ime.usp.br> wrote: > P.S.: Please, as I am not a native speaker of English, feel free to > correct my grammar, style or anything that would improve the text.
Here you go. Feel free to ignore any or all of my suggestions. Cheers, Walter Landry ------------ Re: Software Licence for URW Garamond Fonts To whom it may concern, I am a software developer associated with the Debian project [1], an association of individuals who work together to create a free operating system. I am interested in including the URW Garamond fonts in Debian. Including them in Debian would make them easily available on multiple mirror worldwide, showcasing the excellent work you have done with your fonts. Part of the criteria for including the fonts in Debian is that they conform to a specific set of guidelines: the Debian Free Software Guidelines [2]. The URW Garamond fonts are currently available under the Aladdin Free Public License (AFPL) [3]. Unfortunately, works licensed under the AFPL do not conform to the DFSG, a fact alluded to in the introduction of the AFPL. Despite that, people have been using, redistributing, and modifying them. Motivated by a desire to create a complete set of high quality fonts for Debian and others, I built upon your work and their work by creating a public repository where I can integrate their changes and create a complete set of fonts [4]. As the project diverges from the original fonts as released by (URW)++, it would be convenient if the fonts could be made available under a license that is compatible with the DFSG. This would make it easier to attract contributions and distribute the result. We can, of course, make the fonts available under a different name and fully acknowledge that the initial work was done by (URW)++. We can also refer people to your commercial fonts, make it clear that the project has only been based on your initial release, and that it does not reflect the designs of (URW)++. As a suggestion, it would be simplest if you chose a new license that is already widely used and understood. If you want to release it with minimal restrictions, then the most straightforward license would be the MIT license [5]. If you would like all modified versions of the font to remain free, then using the GNU GPL with a font exception would be preferred [6]. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Rogério Theodoro de Brito Debian Project Maintainer, Member of the Fonts Packaging Team Instructor of Computer Science, Univ. Mackenzie, São Paulo, Brazil [1] http://www.debian.org [2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines [3] http://www.artifex.com/downloads/doc/Public.htm [4] http://git.debian.org/?p=users/rbrito-guest/urw-garamond.git [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expat_License [6] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100413.224608.629041793913682650.wal...@geodynamics.org
