Re: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
My lack of legal brain is confused on this. If URW doesn't change the license and it remains purely GPL, but the other contributors agree to re-license their parts as GLP+FontException, then what is there to be gained by this? Isn't the user bound by most restrictive license in the package, that is pure GPL? On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 19:13 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: >> URW's GPL release does not include the "font exception" additional >> permission; indeed, it predates it. > > Yes, however, GPL is not incompatible with "GPL with font exception". > It doesn't make sense to continue using GPL without the font exception > for > font licensing, which is why I recommended that instead of simply GPL. > > ~spot > > _______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
[Home] [Fedora Users] [Fedora Legacy List] [Fedora Maintainers] [Fedora Desktop] [Red Hat 9 Bible] [Fedora Bible] [Fedora SELinux] [Big List of Linux Books] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [KDE Users] [Fedora Tools]
