On Wednesday 30 January 2002 01:25, Alexander Gelfenbain wrote: | I received the following clarification from our legal people: | | The changes to the BSD were intended to remain consistent with the Open | Source Definition stated by OSI. As such, the statement about nuclear | facilities is a notice and not a restriction per se. | | The BSD+ also re-states the limitation of liability provision consistent | with current law. | | I don't think any additional interpretation is needed: the clause about | nuclear facilities is a notice and not a restriction. | | Regards, | AG |
ok, thanks a lot for clarification! As people on these lists had some concerns, I guess you need to make some clear statement on ST license & nuclear facilities, so ST can be integrated into leading Linux distributions (I guess packagers of those not always read XF Fonts list...) | On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:03:31PM +0600, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote: | > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Alexander Gelfenbain wrote: | > > I can confirm that the license ST will be released with is "BSD+" | > > which is standard BSD with the following clause: | > > | > > * You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or | > > indended * for use in the design, construction, operation or | > > maintenance of any * nuclear facility. | > | > Sorry if it is a stupid question (I'm not a lawyer :), but does | > this clause mean that if ST somehow gets into Red Hat, SuSE or some | > other distro, we (see my signature) and other high-energy physics labs | > will have no legal right to use these distros? | > | > Can you please ask your legal department to make that statement | > more clear? | > | > TIA, | > Dmitry -- Vadim Plessky http://kde2.newmail.ru (English) 33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html KDE mini-Themes http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/ _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts