Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Liberation fonts and the tricky task of internationalizationLiberation fonts and the tricky task of internationalizationPosted Jun 19, 2012 19:25 UTC (Tue) by directhex (subscriber, #58519)In reply to: Liberation fonts and the tricky task of internationalization by juliank Parent article: Liberation fonts and the tricky task of internationalization
Huh? DFSG clause 4: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.)
(Log in to post comments)
Liberation fonts and the tricky task of internationalization Posted Jun 19, 2012 19:32 UTC (Tue) by juliank (subscriber, #45896) [Link]
Right. A different name. But the Ubuntu font license requires it to carry a specific derivation of the Ubuntu font name in some cases, not just a different name. The requirement was thus to strict and thus non-free.
Liberation fonts and the tricky task of internationalization Posted Jun 19, 2012 19:34 UTC (Tue) by juliank (subscriber, #45896) [Link]
The "you must keep Ubuntu" in the name part can be considered equivalent to front cover and back cover texts in the GFDL.
Liberation fonts and the tricky task of internationalization Posted Jun 19, 2012 19:57 UTC (Tue) by Jonno (subscriber, #49613) [Link]
Yes, and Debian don't consider GFDL-licensed works with invariant sections to be free either.
(GFDL-licensed works that don't contain any invariant sections are considered free by Debian, but not copyleft, as it is permissible to add an invariant section to it and thus make it non-free)
|
|||||||||||||