[ Please keep me in the CC since I am not subscribed to -legal ]
I was recently asked to sponsor an upload of a package that carries the
below license. Is this license acceptable for main?
Regards,
-Roberto
-8<>8--
Preamb
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:41:08 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them?
>
> I did.
And how did they explain the difference in their conclusions?!?
>
> >> This should make this license
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think they are applying a double standard here: when the authors of a
> teTeX package add a restriction to the GNU GPL v2 [3], RMS says it
> can't be done because it's self-contradictory [4]; when Red Hat do the
> same, "they are within their rights t
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:18:15 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've spent some time on the Liberation font license mess [1],
Thanks for doing that!
It is really appreciated.
> here are
> my results. Red Hat's Tom Callaway (who is responsible for dealing
> with such licensing issues) stat
Hello,
I've spent some time on the Liberation font license mess [1], here are
my results. Red Hat's Tom Callaway (who is responsible for dealing
with such licensing issues) stated that according to the FSF the
license was "free but GPL-incompatible" [2]. I contacted the FSF to
further clarify on t
5 matches
Mail list logo
