Re: GNOME Font Copyright
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 of the DFSG but most people seem to
read DFSG 1 as allowing it. (Just add one extra character, rename and
you are done it seems.)
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> copy of the fonts accompanying this license (“Fonts”) and associated
> documentation files (the “Font Software”), to reproduce and distribute
> the Font Software, including without limitation the rights to use, copy,
> merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Font Software, and
> to permit persons to whom the Font Software is furnished to do so,
> subject to the following conditions:
I found the difference between "Fonts" and "Font Software" confusing.
What they call software refers to the associated documentation files. I
assume that the permissions (and restrictions) are for both the "Fonts"
and the "Font Software". But (not being a native speaker) this is not
immediatly clear.
Also copyrights (which attach to the copying/distribution policy) and
trademarks (which attach to the naming issue) are very different things.
So it might make sense to suggest that they split these two issues a bit
more (for example what happens when BitStream loses the trademark on the
Vera name?).
Cheers,
Mark
Reply to: