[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: X.org licenses
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: X.org licenses |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:00:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) |
Andreas Enge <address@hidden> skribis:
> I started adding license information to the 184 packages in the X11
> distribution, and did not get very far... There is a list of several very
> similar licenses used, see
> http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE5.html
>
> Number 5.11 is referred to as x11 in license.scm; is it okay to use x11 for
> all others as well?
I would say so, yes.
> font-adobe-utopia-* has this strange license:
>
> Permission to use, reproduce, display and distribute the listed typefaces
> is hereby granted, provided that the Adobe Copyright notice appears in all
> whole and partial copies of the software and that the following trademark
> symbol and attribution appear in all unmodified copies of the software:
> Copyright (c) 1989 Adobe Systems Incorporated
> Utopia (R)
> Utopia is a registered trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated
> The Adobe typefaces (Type 1 font program, bitmaps and Adobe Font Metric
> files) donated are:
> Utopia Regular
> Utopia Italic
> Utopia Bold
> Utopia Bold Italic
>
> There is no explicit permission to modify the fonts. On the other hand, the
> sentence speaking of "umodified copies" seems to imply that modified copies
> may also be distributed.
>
> The license of font-bh-* has the same ambiguity as far as modification is
> concerned:
>
> This is the LEGAL NOTICE pertaining to the Lucida fonts from Bigelow &
> Holmes:
The <http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Software_blacklist> lists Lucida as
non-free, but does not mention the others. So I guess Utopia is OK, but
Lucida is not.
> Worst of all so far:
> font-daewoo-misc has the following COPYING:
>
> "Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Daewoo Electronics Co.,Ltd."
If there’s nothing else written, then it’s definitely non-free.
Thanks for the investigation!
Ludo’.