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

Re: Possible problem with licensing of liberation-fonts



On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 09:50 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 09:47 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 14:47 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> > > On 03/08/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa redhat com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 11:48 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't find any discussion of this in the archives, so apologies if
> > > > > this has come up before, but there seems to be a bit of a problem
> > > > > regarding the GPL+restrictions nature of the liberation fonts we have
> > > > > packaged for Fedora. See the Debian discussion here:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal lists debian org/msg36584.html
> > > > >
> > > > > These arguments would seem to apply equally well to
> > > > > inclusion/exclusion of liberation fonts in Fedora as well. Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Talking to the FSF, to see what they think.
> > > 
> > > OK Thanks.
> > > 
> > > Actually, a related issue is that the License.txt file refers to GPL
> > > v2, and grants exceptions to that (which is the point of centention
> > > with Debian) *but* the COPYING file that is distributed with the fonts
> > > is the LGPL v2 file. That is presumably in error.
> 
> I double checked, and in liberation-fonts-0.2, COPYING is the GPLv2, not
> the LGPLv2.

This problem was fixed some time ago.


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