Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer
- From: Florian Weimer <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:29:34 +0100
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20071130235329.GA4610@debian.borkwood> (John Halton's message of "Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:53:29 +0000")
- References: <20071130175721.GG8849@cajita.gateway.2wire.net> <email@example.com> <20071130235329.GA4610@debian.borkwood>
* John Halton:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:11:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Gunnar Wolf:
>> > 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?
>> Compare the Adobe AFM license and the MIT license. 8-)
> Heh. Fair point. But the MIT licence is clearer: "Permission is hereby
> granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy...". No risk
> of confusion there.
There are several variants of the MIT license, including one that uses
"permission to use [...] for any purpose and without fee is hereby
granted". MIT itself uses this variant for Kerberos 5. It's less
popular than the non-ambigous wording, it seems, but even our own
reportbug falls into the ambiguous category.
Grepping for "and without fee is hereby" in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright
yields quite interesting results.