On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:15:56 +0100 Ralf Stubner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:56 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Actually, I think clause 4 of the license fails to meet the DFSG. > > > > Clause 4 states: > > > > | 4. You may also (a) add glyphs or characters to the Fonts, or > > | modify the shape of existing glyphs, so long as the base set of > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > | glyphs > > | is not removed and (b) delete glyphs or characters from the Fonts, > > | provided that the resulting font set is distributed with the > > | following disclaimer: "This [name] font does not include all the > > | Unicode points covered in the STIX Fonts-TM set but may include > > | others." In each case, the name used to denote the resulting font > > | set shall not include the term "STIX" or any similar term. > [...] > > It seems to me that the license does not allow modifications to the > > base set of glyphs (not even through patch files for the source > > code, with the explicit permission to distribute what is built from > > modified source code). > > I think the above highlighted passage does allow changing the base set > of glyphs. I'm not sure: am I allowed to substitute (in the final ready-to-use form of the font) one glyph with a modified version of it for the same character? The clause is not overly clear, and I am under the impression that the above described scenario is not allowed. A clarification from upstream would be useful. P.S.: Please do not Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is in the loop, thanks. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpacRsV8DM1y.pgp
Description: PGP signature