[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-hackers-public] [ #221247] Needing clarifications regar

From: Dave Turner via RT
Subject: [Savannah-hackers-public] [ #221247] Needing clarifications regarding compatibility between the GPL and FreeType Project License
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:44:36 -0500

> address@hidden - Thu Feb 10 17:14:26 2005]:
> Hello Everyone,
> Dave Turner via RT a écrit :
> >>address@hidden - Tue Feb 08 17:44:21 2005]:
> >>
> >>Dear all,
> > 
> > 
> > Hi.  I am also David Turner, but a *different* David Turner.  Just to
> > avoid confusion in the thread which may follow, please refer to me as
> > "Novalis", which is another name I use.
> >
> Well, that was bound to happen. How quaint, isn't it ;-)

Even better:

> > I don't know what RMS told you.  It's possible that he's seen 
> > something I haven't.
> > 
> > I can see how this license could be incompatible.  It can be read to
> > have a specific format requirement for the license text -- a certain
> > file with a certain name.  But if it's the copyright holders' intent
> > that it be compatible, then that requirement could be read to simply
> > say that this text has to be in some reasonable place.  If you (and 
> > the other two Freetype hackers) say that you think the license is
> > compatible, that FT can be distributed under the terms of the GPL, 
> > then I'll submit the FTL to our licensing committee for an official 
> > evaluation.
> >
> To be honest, we always thought that the license was compatible with 
> the GPL until someone told us it wasn't. This was several years ago, 
> and I don't really remember when this happened, neither does Werner 
> (or Robert, our third original author, who appears in the license, and 
> is now living a different life and left the project for all practical 
> purposes).
> When it happened, we asked RMS, then started dual-licensing. We have 
> no specific interest in providing dual licenses (unlike, say, a 
> commercial entity like TrollTech with their Qt library), except to 
> please all kinds of free software developers.
> Using a single license would slightly simplify things for us, though.
> And yes, we don't impose a specific file name for the license. As long 
> as the license text is distributed with the sources, any place is 
> reasonable for us.

OK, then I'll submit it.

> > I can't comment on a license I haven't seen.  A quick Google search
> > shows that some other versions look similar, but if you have concerns
> > about some variant, please show me that variant.
> We don't have concerns about it at the moment. However, if you insist, 
> I can try to fetch all variants of the license and produce some diffs 
> to show the differences more easily.

It would be best to just switch everything over to a single license, if
possible.  That would simplify things for everyone.

-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]