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
J.B. Nicholson-Owens writes:
> Joe Drew wrote:
> > Probably because Bitstream refuse to operate under any model but this
> > one (i.e., to not let substandard fonts get used as the official ones),
> > and they're more interested in getting things done than in blue-sky
> > idealism?
>
> So y
J.B. Nicholson-Owens writes:
> Joe Drew wrote:
> > Because GNOME negotiated with Bitstream to make these fonts free, which
> > Bitstream is going to do. That is to say, GNOME's involvement is the
> > reason these fonts are free, not the other way around.
>
> So, if I understand you correctly
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
On Feb 25, 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.
I believe this is incorrect -- I don't think that GNOME is compelled to
distrib
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.B. Nicholson-Owens)
> In another post to debian-legal I encouraged Debian to basically
> ignore the draft license until some software is released under it.
On debian-legal, we're usually happy to work with software authors to
get the warts removed from their draft li
Don Armstrong wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the vera fonts are not available from gnome's
> ftp site yet. [Feel free to provide linkage to demonstrate otherwise.]
See http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ for the link to the following file.
$ wget --spider --server-response
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying in exchange for
> distributing the non-free fonts on GNOME's FTP site, Bitstream will
> ultimately release the fonts under a DFSG-free[1] license?
As far as I can tell, the vera fonts are not availa
Joe Drew wrote:
> Because GNOME negotiated with Bitstream to make these fonts free, which
> Bitstream is going to do. That is to say, GNOME's involvement is the
> reason these fonts are free, not the other way around.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying in exchange for
distributing th
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 16:08, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Why didn't GNOME choose to get involved with these fonts when
> Bitstream releases them as Free Software fonts?
Because GNOME negotiated with Bitstream to make these fonts free, which
Bitstream is going to do. That is to say, GNOME's invol
Joe Drew wrote:
> Probably because Bitstream refuse to operate under any model but this
> one (i.e., to not let substandard fonts get used as the official ones),
> and they're more interested in getting things done than in blue-sky
> idealism?
So you don't really know, you're just guessing? Stick
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 19:03, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Apparently, the fonts donated to GNOME by Bitstream are now available.
> > The current "beta-test" license is clearly non-free [...]
>
> Why is GNOME getting involved with non-free software at all? Why not just
>
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Apparently, the fonts donated to GNOME by Bitstream are now available.
> The current "beta-test" license is clearly non-free [...]
Why is GNOME getting involved with non-free software at all? Why not just
get involved when Bitstream is ready to distribute Free Software font
Scripsit Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 21:02, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The big problem that glares out at me is the "cannot sell by itself"
> > clause. I vaguely remember that d-legal considers that to be a silly
> > restriction that has no effect on freeness, but I cou
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 15:02, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
> no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
> itself.
I agree that this is a Free Software license, personally. It seems
fundamentally no different
Hi,
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 21:02, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The big problem that glares out at me is the "cannot sell by itself"
> clause. I vaguely remember that d-legal considers that to be a silly
> restriction that has no effect on freeness, but I could be wrong.
It is certainly not in the spirit
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 03:02:26PM -0500, Jeff Licquia quoted:
> > The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
> > no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
> > itself.
> I wonder how it's possible
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 03:02:26PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Apparently, the fonts donated to GNOME by Bitstream are now available.
> The current "beta-test" license is clearly non-free, but they are
> proposing a license for the final release which seems to be DFSG-free.
> I've included the l
Apparently, the fonts donated to GNOME by Bitstream are now available.
The current "beta-test" license is clearly non-free, but they are
proposing a license for the final release which seems to be DFSG-free.
I've included the license text below. Is this DFSG-free? If not, what
changes need to b
19 matches
Mail list logo
