[Pkg-fonts-devel] fontforge license queries (Was: fontforge new licensing)
- To: Fabian Greffrath <email@example.com>
- Cc: Debian Fonts Task Force <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Pkg-fonts-devel] fontforge license queries (Was: fontforge new licensing)
- From: Vasudev Kamath <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:28:19 +0530
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com> (Fabian Greffrath's message of "Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:44:07 +0200")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Fabian Greffrath <email@example.com> writes:
> Hi again,
> Am Sonntag, den 24.04.2016, 12:47 +0530 schrieb Vasudev Kamath:
>> Basically if Xlib.h is missing then this part is used which is from
>> Xlib.h file with Open Group Public License
>> If we have proper dependency this #else block will not be considered,
>> how do we interpret the licensing? :-). License check tool tells me
>> file BSD-3-clause.
> regardless of the CPP macro being defined or not, we distribute the
> file as a whole in the source code, so the license of the entire file
> needs to be documented. So, I would say, we have two copyright holders
> and two licenses (BSD-3-clause and Open Group Public License) which
> apply for this file.
OK I will update the copyright appropriately.
> Don't get fooled by licensecheck, it doesn't have a clue about complex
> licensing situations like this.
Sure that is why I cross verify by reading the file.
>> Both Open Group License and above license looks like permissive
>> but I'm confused on how to interpret the licensing of the entire
> Again, it contains code by two authors, so it has two copyright
> holders. Also, by distributing the entire file, we have to adhere to
> two licenses at once, so both of them should show up in the License
Now I would need some help to identify this license
All Rights Reserved
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
supporting documentation, and that the name of Digital not be
used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the
software without specific, written prior permission.
DIGITAL DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING
ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO EVENT SHALL
DIGITAL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR
ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION,
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS
It looks like Expat/MIT but the terms are not exactly the same so I
wonder what I should name this licensing as.
>> Any suggestions are welcome.
> Hope that helps, I am not a lawyer!
Sure same here ;-). (That is why I ask here)
>> Well not really :-). If we want a proper copyright there is lot more
>> to do :(.
> Sure. But there seem to be broad rules with only a few select
> exceptions. Anyway, thank you very much for working on this! This is
> highly appreciated.
No problem :-). Some one has to take it up at some point of time.