https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104052
--- Comment #14 from Rene Engelhard <r...@debian.org> --- > What's the problem with this licence? We (freeColour) discussed the licensing > > options with an IP lawyer that is probably the problem. > and came to the conclusion that, to guarantee the > same outcome on all > platforms and the reliability of the physical colour reference in connection > with any programme, the ND option is the best. Your opinion. But it violates the open source Defnition. Remember you are contributing to a open source project (or well, Heiko did). https://opensource.org/osd-annotated So it's not something we should ship. > I've had this discussion in other contexts already, and the major concern was > > that using any of the colours in a document creates a derivative. This is > *not* true. Using a colour is what is says: use, which is not limited by the > licence. I didn't claim so. Still you can't modify it. > The ND option only serves to guarantee the correctness of the colour values > and the related colour codes. You can compare it to an open standard. The ODF > > spec would be useless if anyone could modify the text But a "random" color palette is not a standard. And saying that, by Debians standards (DFSG, which the OSD is actually based on) standard texts or RFCs are not suitable for Debian main either. Regards, Rene -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
