On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:56:25 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 contacte
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 the
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
