"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence
> >as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html
>
> I think you're wrong here ... (certa
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:04:09 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
[...]
> >The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as
> >permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should
> >use the plain G
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
> You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
> granted by the GPL*. But there are already such rest
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
> > granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you
> > cannot remove them because you are not th
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
> On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
>> You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
>> granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you
>> cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder.
>
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
> You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
> granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you
> cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder.
> Hence you cannot comply with the
On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:55:23 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because
> > it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional
> > restrictions).
> >
> > What do
On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote:
> Mmmmh, does the following "exception" constitute an additional
> restriction with respect to the GNU GPL v2?
>
> | (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the
> | Software in a physical product must provide you
On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:52:05 +0100 (BST) Alan Baghumian wrote:
[...]
> You can find the exact license here:
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/packages/ttf-liberation/trunk/debian/copyright?op=file&rev=0&sc=0
Mmmmh, does the following "exception" constitute an additional
restriction with res
Hi,
I'm a member of the font packaging team. Red Hat recently has released a
set of fonts under the GPL with an exception about it's trademarks. This
fonts can cover the lack of Arial, Times and Courier fonts.
We started our work to package them for Debian but noticed that's better
to ask debian-
10 matches
Mail list logo
