Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > While the end result is obviously more restrictive than the GPLv2, I > don't think it's invalid or self-contradictory in anyway - though I'd > love to hear other reasons why.
I think this is about http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/packages/ttf-liberation/trunk/debian/copyright?op=file&rev=0&sc=0 As I understand it, that is a licence which says, essentially:- - you may distribute this only if you do not add restrictions that are not in GPLv2 (GPLv2 s6); and - you may distribute this only if you add some restriction which is not in GPLv2 (addition s1b - the description as an "exception" is clearly incorrect IMO). There is no way to satisfy both GPLv2 and the addition, so there is no permission to distribute. More on this:- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/threads.html#00039 > > I didn't think additional restrictions were a problem themselves. > > I think they are in a couple of ways, the main ones being license > proliferation and unintended side-effects: you can mitigate against > those problems, but it's a sort of "guilty until proven innocent" > situation, if you see what I mean. OK, I agree. They're a problem, but not a free-software-specific one. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list Fsfe-uk@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
