Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:57:21AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> - Adobe PostScript AFM Files: may be used, copied, and distributed for
> any purpose and without charge, with or without modification,
> provided that all copyright notices are retained; that the AFM files
> are not distributed without this file; that all modifications to
> this file or any of the AFM files are prominently noted in the
> modified file(s); and that this paragraph is not modified
<snip>
> 2- This is the main reason I contact -legal: The short license
> regarding the Adobe PostScript AFM files does mention 'for any
> purpose and without charge'. How would you interpret this? Charging
> for media including this file would be illegal? Repackaging the AFM
> files by themselves and charging for them would be illegal? Could
> this be included in main, or is it a candidate for non-free?
My initial reading was that "without charge" means that licensees
cannot charge those to whom they (i.e. the licensees) distribute the
files. That would be non-free.
However, on a closer reading it actually seems to be saying simply
that *Adobe* won't charge the licensee for using, copying and
distributing the files. i.e. you don't have to pay to do these things;
it is "free as in beer".
If Adobe intended the former interpretation to apply then this would
have come *after* the words "provided that" (e.g. "provided that you
do not charge anyone for copies that you distribute", or whatever).
It wouldn't hurt to get clarification from Adobe if possible, as it is
not a very well drafted licence, and the reference to "without charge"
does muddy the waters a bit. But on the face of it this doesn't appear
to be non-free.
John
(TINLA)
Reply to: