Re: TeX Gyre Fonts, ftp-master email
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 14:33 +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> On 28.06.09 Ralf Stubner (ralf.stubner@web.de) wrote:
[...]
> > The input for the TeX Gyre Fonts were not the original URW fonts
> > that are now also available under LPPL. Instead the version
> > expanded to include Cyrillic glyphs has been used. Obvioulsy,
> > these expanded version is not covered by this change:
> >
> > > Of course, this additional licensing applies to the original URW++
> > > material, not any subsequent changes and additions made by other
> > > parties.
> >
> > (Peter Rosenfeld from URW++)
> >
> Does that mean the change is completely irrelevant to us, as URW did
> not change the license of the source of TeX-Gyre (and probably can't
> do it). I never read the LPPL: perhaps there is a clause that a piece
> of work being under LPPL inherits its license to all work derived
> from it (like the GPL does it)...
It depends on how strict one wants to be ...
Concerning the LPPL, AFAIK it is not inherited by derived works. If it
were, the change in license would be absolutly useless, since the GUST
font license while derived from LPPL is still a different license. But
anyway, I find it much more difficult to think about a work derived
from another work that has been released under some license. Now an
additional option for the licensing of the original work is made
available. Is one allowed to make use of that even though the actual
work was done *before* the new license option was available? I am not
sure, and I guess it is irrelevant since nobody will go to court
because of this ...
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: