Ian Denhardt (2014-10-23 21:36 +0400) wrote: > Quoting Eric Bavier (2014-10-23 10:14:02) >> >> Andreas Enge writes: >> >> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:51:04PM +0400, Alex Kost wrote: >> >> «In lieu of a licence: Fonts in this site are offered free for any use; >> >> they may be opened, edited, modified, regenerated, posted, packaged and >> >> redistributed.» >> >> Is it OK to use "fsf-free" for this package? >> > >> > To me, this sounds like "public-domain". >> >> I was thinking the same. > > To me this sounds like "author does not understand licensing/copyright." > It's pretty obvious the intent is some kind of simple permissive thing > (whether that's a license or public domain), but it's not clear to me > how much legal ambiguity there is. IANAL, but for certain entities, the > ambiguity can be a problem (suppose, for example, you're a designer > wanting to use this font for something, but you work somewhere with a > strict legal department that doesn't think this qualifies as a license - > you may be out of luck). > > You run into issues around certain packages, like sqlite-docs, where > they end up being technically non-free because the developers decide > "copyright is silly, I'm not going to deal with this." I sympathize, > but... > > We ought to be careful about this one - maybe ask someone at the FSF > about whether this meets their standards, and if not maybe ask the > developer if they can put something less ambiguous on it.
According to <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html> such questions may be asked at <licens...@fsf.org>. But I'm afraid I'm not able to ask about it properly.
