Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
Hello, Francesco! You wrote to debian-legal@lists.debian.org on Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:49:28 +0200: >> >> In the US and some other places, bitmap fonts can't be copyrighted. You >> >> can >> >> make a free bitmap font by rendering a non-free font at a particular size. >> > >> > Interesting: could you point me at the specific article that states >> > this rule in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ ? >> >> The issue was raised on this list before. I tried to describe my >> understanding of it in >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg3.html . But it >> was long ago and I didn't revisit it since then. > > Very interesting reading. > > What I wonder now is: why I see many copyright holders and copyright > licenses in, say, /usr/share/doc/xfonts-base/copyright ? Because it's tradition?:-) And after you are done with bitmap fonts you can look at autotraced fonts (e.g. cm-super). Both questions of source and of copyright/license for them are interesting. BTW here is an idea how to get many free scalable fonts: rasterize all interesting non-free fonts at high resolution and autotrace them. Quality will be lost to some degree but with luck you will get good enough fonts. There are many things to wonder (apart from legal system:-)... Alexander Cherepanov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is "IPA Font license" DFSG-Free?
Hello, Dmitrijs! You wrote to debian-legal@lists.debian.org on Sun, 31 May 2009 18:58:04 +0100: > 2009/5/31 Josselin Mouette : >> Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 ? 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a ?crit : >>> ÿI've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. >> >>> ÿYou can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html >>> ÿPlease give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. >> >> The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. >> >> For derived works: >> ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿNo one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a >> ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿprogram name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. >> >> And for redistribution without modification: >> ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. >> > > This is a long standing tradition within TeX to prevent namespace > collision. Back in the old days it was important that if you modify > and release something and you are not the original author you have to > change the name of the package such that you don't break the > compatability with all the TeX documents in the wild. That's a noble goal but it doesn't make it DFSG-free. AFAIR the idea is that filenames are functional so a DFSG-free license cannot prohibit their change. > This clause comes from (off top of my head) the LaTeX license LPPL just codified what was there long before. > which FSF declared > as GPL incompatible due to this renaming forcing clause. > > TeXLive is in Debian and a lot of it is license under Latex license so > that bit is DFSG-free but the example above is self-contradicting. I > think the author intended to use the Latex license instead. > > See > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses > > The Latex Project Public License 1.2 I hope most (la)tex packages have migrated to LPPL-1.3 long ago (though didn't check it). And LPPL-1.3 have dropped filename change clause after lngthy discussion on debian-legal. Having said that, there were some very important files with filename change clause in their licenses -- see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/01/msg00160.html for examples. I will be glad to hear that something has changed in the last five years but I somehow doubt it. Alexander Cherepanov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:56:29 +0400 Alexander Cherepanov wrote: > Hello, Francesco! > You wrote to debian-legal@lists.debian.org on Fri, 29 May 2009 00:29:18 +0200: > > >> In the US and some other places, bitmap fonts can't be copyrighted. You > >> can > >> make a free bitmap font by rendering a non-free font at a particular size. > > > > Interesting: could you point me at the specific article that states > > this rule in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ ? > > The issue was raised on this list before. I tried to describe my > understanding of it in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg3.html . But it > was long ago and I didn't revisit it since then. Very interesting reading. What I wonder now is: why I see many copyright holders and copyright licenses in, say, /usr/share/doc/xfonts-base/copyright ? -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpP8wXFOB8HD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
Hello, Francesco! You wrote to debian-legal@lists.debian.org on Fri, 29 May 2009 00:29:18 +0200: >> In the US and some other places, bitmap fonts can't be copyrighted. You can >> make a free bitmap font by rendering a non-free font at a particular size. > > Interesting: could you point me at the specific article that states > this rule in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ ? The issue was raised on this list before. I tried to describe my understanding of it in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg3.html . But it was long ago and I didn't revisit it since then. Alexander Cherepanov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:03:15 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: > > > In the US and some other places, bitmap fonts can't be copyrighted. You > > > can > > > make a free bitmap font by rendering a non-free font at a particular size. > > > > Interesting: could you point me at the specific article that states > > this rule in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ ? > > Like the UK, US law can be created by case law deciding any grey areas > and not only rules stated in legislation. Yes, I know, but sometimes I fail to take it into account... :p Thanks for reminding me! :-) > That may have happened here > and then it wouldn't appear in that document. I don't know. OK, let's rephrase my question in a better, more precise, form: could someone point me at the specific article that states this rule in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ or to the specific court decision that created this rule? > > > Anyway, even assuming that those bitmap fonts are DFSG-free in the US > > and "some other places", what about other jurisdictions? > > I think that the Berne Convention Article 7 part (8) > http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/7.html > exports the US zero protection duration in this case. This is useful, thanks for pointing my attention at this Berne Convention article! > > We can't rely on US Fair Use because Article 10 (2) allows national > law to vary it in each country. Yes, this makes sense. > > IANAL and I could be wrong about this, so would welcome correction. As usual, thanks for your useful contribution! -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpWiOgDFoErY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is "IPA Font license" DFSG-Free?
Hi Josselin, On Sun, 31 May 2009 19:00:13 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > Otherwise, it’s a simple license with a strong copyleft, which should be > fine for Debian. Okay, thanks for your comment, I'll put it into main :) -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/iijmio-mail.jp http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
