Re: Liberation Font License revisited
Francesco Poli <email@example.com> 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 , RMS says it
> can't be done because it's self-contradictory ; when Red Hat do the
> same, "they are within their rights to do it the way they did"...
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00298.html
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html
> Did you point RMS' message  out to the FSF when you contacted them?
>> This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right?
> This makes this license acceptable for the *FSF*, which is a different
As far as I can see, the main argument against this license here on
debian-legal was that the FSF (or RMS) had considered such licenses to
be invalid. However, this seems not to be the case now, no matter
whether the FSF changed their mind or not.
*** OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software for GNU/Linux and more ***
*** http://www.osreviews.net/ ***
*** OS Reviews * Hendrik Weimer Phone: +49-711-81041666 ***
*** Tiroler Str. 70 * 70329 Stuttgart * GERMANY firstname.lastname@example.org ***