Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:52:23PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This license only gives permission when fee is not charged. That seems
to be DSFG1 violation. Also mixing code of GPL and this seems to be
incompatible.
This is a fairly
Hi,
Thanks for saving lost soul.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:58:28AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
This clause is universally interpreted to mean that the permission is
granted and you don't need to pay a fee to get that permission; in other
words, for any purpose and without fee is granted is
I was approached a while ago to make a few comments on the stix font
license and its possible suitability for inclusion in Debian.
Obviously since I'm not an ftpmaster the comments were only my own
opinion, but just in case the issue comes up again I've attached my
analysis to this message along
Along with the stix license, there were a few questions asked about
the OFL license as well. We visited the license a while ago, but never
really came to a complete conclusion on it one way or another.
Attached is the license again for reference, along with my own
analysis of it.
Don Armstrong
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
state among other:
[...]
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.
[...]
(see the full license at
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
state among other:
[...]
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.
[...]
(see
Måns Rullgård wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
state among other:
[...]
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
olive wrote:
Does the fact that the fonts cannot be sold separatly is compatible with
the DFSG?
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling [...] the software as a component of an AGGREGATE SOFTWARE
DISTRIBUTION containing programs from several different sources.
Am 2006-01-12 18:51:42, schrieb Alexander Terekhov:
BTW, I've just checked my records. I have 15 orders of MS winxp64 beta
downloads on record. 14 copies are still available. Anyone? Just EURO 5
plus postage cost.
Too expensive. :-P
regards,
alexander.
Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Francesco Poli wrote:
For instance, names such as STIX++, STIXng, newSTIX, STIXER, STICS,
STHIX, and so forth, are banned by the above clause, but they are
*different* from the original name, and thus comply with the maximum
DFSG-allowed restriction on names.
OTOH, were STIX a trademark
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:47:16 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
4. If the Fonts are augmented pursuant to Section 3(b), the name
used to denote the resulting fonts set shall not include the
term ___STIX___ or any similar term, and any distribution or
sale of the resulting
olive wrote:
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
state among other:
[...]
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.
[...]
(see the full license at
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:47:16 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
4. If the Fonts are augmented pursuant to Section 3(b), the name
used to denote the resulting fonts set shall not include the
term ___STIX___ or any similar term, and any
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:09:43 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
My statement applies to section 5 which you elided, not section 4,
which I didn't even bother to address (beyond the part which gets
addressed in section 5.)
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding!
I thought you were referring to both
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work,
shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that
On 1/22/06, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2006-01-12 18:51:42, schrieb Alexander Terekhov:
BTW, I've just checked my records. I have 15 orders of MS winxp64 beta
downloads on record. 14 copies are still available. Anyone? Just EURO 5
plus postage cost.
Too expensive. :-P
16 matches
Mail list logo
