On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:43:57 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Gervase Markham wrote: > > > Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > >> This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as > >> the original software is acceptable. > >> I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of > >> Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. > > > > I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Because all of the Reserved > > Font Names will have been used for the font in the ancestor version > > tree of the software somewhere, they are all the name of the > > "original software" - at different points in its development. > > Right, if that's guaranteed, then it should be a DFSG-free > restriction. Actually, no, it does *not* seem to be guaranteed. > Can that ever be not the case (a Reserved Font Name > sneaking in somehow)? Unfortunately, it seems that any arbitrary name can be reserved. See the following messages elsewhere in this same thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00164.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00165.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00168.html That's why I think this is a check-on-a-case-by-case-basis license. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpj_G2ZiuRpJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature