On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:09:48AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Cc'ing debian-legal...
tomas pospisek wrote:
3) The copyright seems to be fine - any comments?
I don't think that...
Copyright (c) 1993 Cornell University, Kongji Huang
All rights reserved.
Permission to use, copy,
Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Copyright (c) 1993 Cornell University, Kongji Huang
All rights reserved.
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
^
documentation for research
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
als Reiseveranstalter in der Türkei, mit Sitz in Deutschland, suchen wir neue
Kooperationspartner.
Unsere Partner sollten eigene Reisegruppen organisieren oder die Angebote von
DIADEMTRAVEL (Flüge, Hotels, Rundreisen, Badeurlaub, Sudienreisen,
Bildungsreisen,
Apparently, the fonts donated to GNOME by Bitstream are now available.
The current beta-test license is clearly non-free, but they are
proposing a license for the final release which seems to be DFSG-free.
I've included the license text below. Is this DFSG-free? If not, what
changes need to be
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 03:02:26PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Apparently, the fonts donated to GNOME by Bitstream are now available.
The current beta-test license is clearly non-free, but they are
proposing a license for the final release which seems to be DFSG-free.
I've included the
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 03:02:26PM -0500, Jeff Licquia quoted:
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
itself.
I wonder how it's possible to more
Hi,
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 21:02, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The big problem that glares out at me is the cannot sell by itself
clause. I vaguely remember that d-legal considers that to be a silly
restriction that has no effect on freeness, but I could be wrong.
It is certainly not in the spirit of
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 15:02, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
itself.
I agree that this is a Free Software license, personally. It seems
fundamentally no different
Scripsit Mark Wielaard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 21:02, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The big problem that glares out at me is the cannot sell by itself
clause. I vaguely remember that d-legal considers that to be a silly
restriction that has no effect on freeness, but I could be
Jeff Licquia wrote:
Apparently, the fonts donated to GNOME by Bitstream are now available.
The current beta-test license is clearly non-free [...]
Why is GNOME getting involved with non-free software at all? Why not just
get involved when Bitstream is ready to distribute Free Software fonts?
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 06:49:26PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
On Tuesday 18 February 2003 04:28 am, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
A friend of mine has pointed me that it is very likely that many fonts
have problems with trademark infringement. I suppose that some
(most?) of the font names are
11 matches
Mail list logo
