You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> on 2007/07/17 00:02:52 UTC
Re: [classlib][awt] Default fonts needed for headless support (was
Re:[contributions][awt] Font library)
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:33 +0400, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> 2007/7/16, Dmitriy Matveev <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > We can take this bundle of fonts as a variant:
> > http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> >
> > License is there:
> > http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/License
> Is it possible to include these fonts to Harmony?
interesting question :-)
at first glance, i thought that the license was not OSI compatible but
after taking a look at
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/x11/ttf-bitstream-vera and another
one at the license the license is IMHO non-viral and compliant.
hopefully, those who know more will jump in if this isn't write.
here's my reasoning:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php states only
"1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or
giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several
different sources. The license shall not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale."
so it's ok to prevent the sale of a component outside an aggregation.
going by http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html, this means that
it should be ok. however, please take care over the labeling
requirements since the policy is still in flux.
it is also a very unusual open source license and so people may well
jump in with differing opinions.
- robert
Re: [classlib][awt] Default fonts needed for headless support (was Re:[contributions][awt] Font library)
Posted by Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>.
So...
Dmitriy, thanks again for finding these fonts :)
Have you filed this issue to JIRA? If not then please do it.
I'll prepare a patch.
SY, Alexey
2007/7/17, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>:
> So we can use it in Harmony. Great!
> This will solve a number of problems for us.
>
> Thanks a lot for your help, guys!
>
> SY, Alexey
>
> 2007/7/17, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com>:
> > On Jul 16, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > > Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > >> On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:33 +0400, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > >>>> 2007/7/16, Dmitriy Matveev <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>> We can take this bundle of fonts as a variant:
> > >>>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> License is there:
> > >>>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/License
> > >>>> Is it possible to include these fonts to Harmony?
> > >>
> > >> It is a reworded Apache 1.1 license with one additional clause
> > >>
> > >> The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software
> > >> package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software
> > >> typefaces may be sold by itself.
> > >>
> > >> which has no impact on us or anyone who redistributes our packages.
> > >> That means it is okay provided that the license is added to our
> > >> product's LICENSE file noting what it applies to.
> > >
> > > Isn't this an additional restriction over and above the terms of AL2?
> >
> > Only when it is sold as an individual typeface. It does not restrict
> > our software in any way.
> >
> > > My understanding of our position (and I would be more than happy to be
> > > corrected on this) is that anything we include should not be more
> > > restrictive than AL2.
> >
> > It isn't more restrictive when it is included.
> >
> > > As I understand AL2, I can take any element (or elements) of an Apache
> > > distribution, package it/them however I like and (providing I meet the
> > > redistribution requirements of section AL2.4) sell them for as much as
> > > I can get away with.
> >
> > No. You can take anything licensed by the ASF in that way. These
> > fonts are not licensed by the ASF.
> >
> > > These don't appear to be compatible. Where have I got it wrong?
> >
> > It is not our software. Compatible means that we can safely and
> > legally distribute our software in combination with theirs, which
> > we can under that license, and that the resulting package as a
> > whole can be redistributed under terms no more restrictive than
> > the Apache License terms. That clause does not restrict our
> > packages.
> >
> > ....Roy
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> > only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> > constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> > and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> > official ASF policies and documents.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [classlib][awt] Default fonts needed for headless support (was Re:[contributions][awt] Font library)
Posted by Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>.
So we can use it in Harmony. Great!
This will solve a number of problems for us.
Thanks a lot for your help, guys!
SY, Alexey
2007/7/17, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com>:
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:33 +0400, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> >>>> 2007/7/16, Dmitriy Matveev <ma...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>> We can take this bundle of fonts as a variant:
> >>>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> >>>>>
> >>>>> License is there:
> >>>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/License
> >>>> Is it possible to include these fonts to Harmony?
> >>
> >> It is a reworded Apache 1.1 license with one additional clause
> >>
> >> The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software
> >> package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software
> >> typefaces may be sold by itself.
> >>
> >> which has no impact on us or anyone who redistributes our packages.
> >> That means it is okay provided that the license is added to our
> >> product's LICENSE file noting what it applies to.
> >
> > Isn't this an additional restriction over and above the terms of AL2?
>
> Only when it is sold as an individual typeface. It does not restrict
> our software in any way.
>
> > My understanding of our position (and I would be more than happy to be
> > corrected on this) is that anything we include should not be more
> > restrictive than AL2.
>
> It isn't more restrictive when it is included.
>
> > As I understand AL2, I can take any element (or elements) of an Apache
> > distribution, package it/them however I like and (providing I meet the
> > redistribution requirements of section AL2.4) sell them for as much as
> > I can get away with.
>
> No. You can take anything licensed by the ASF in that way. These
> fonts are not licensed by the ASF.
>
> > These don't appear to be compatible. Where have I got it wrong?
>
> It is not our software. Compatible means that we can safely and
> legally distribute our software in combination with theirs, which
> we can under that license, and that the resulting package as a
> whole can be redistributed under terms no more restrictive than
> the Apache License terms. That clause does not restrict our
> packages.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: [classlib][awt] Default fonts needed for headless support (was Re:[contributions][awt] Font library)
Posted by Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>.
So we can use it in Harmony. Great!
This will solve a number of problems for us.
Thanks a lot for your help, guys!
SY, Alexey
2007/7/17, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com>:
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:33 +0400, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> >>>> 2007/7/16, Dmitriy Matveev <ma...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>> We can take this bundle of fonts as a variant:
> >>>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> >>>>>
> >>>>> License is there:
> >>>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/License
> >>>> Is it possible to include these fonts to Harmony?
> >>
> >> It is a reworded Apache 1.1 license with one additional clause
> >>
> >> The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software
> >> package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software
> >> typefaces may be sold by itself.
> >>
> >> which has no impact on us or anyone who redistributes our packages.
> >> That means it is okay provided that the license is added to our
> >> product's LICENSE file noting what it applies to.
> >
> > Isn't this an additional restriction over and above the terms of AL2?
>
> Only when it is sold as an individual typeface. It does not restrict
> our software in any way.
>
> > My understanding of our position (and I would be more than happy to be
> > corrected on this) is that anything we include should not be more
> > restrictive than AL2.
>
> It isn't more restrictive when it is included.
>
> > As I understand AL2, I can take any element (or elements) of an Apache
> > distribution, package it/them however I like and (providing I meet the
> > redistribution requirements of section AL2.4) sell them for as much as
> > I can get away with.
>
> No. You can take anything licensed by the ASF in that way. These
> fonts are not licensed by the ASF.
>
> > These don't appear to be compatible. Where have I got it wrong?
>
> It is not our software. Compatible means that we can safely and
> legally distribute our software in combination with theirs, which
> we can under that license, and that the resulting package as a
> whole can be redistributed under terms no more restrictive than
> the Apache License terms. That clause does not restrict our
> packages.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [classlib][awt] Default fonts needed for headless support (was Re:[contributions][awt] Font library)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 16, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:33 +0400, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
>>>> 2007/7/16, Dmitriy Matveev <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> We can take this bundle of fonts as a variant:
>>>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>>>>>
>>>>> License is there:
>>>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/License
>>>> Is it possible to include these fonts to Harmony?
>>
>> It is a reworded Apache 1.1 license with one additional clause
>>
>> The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software
>> package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software
>> typefaces may be sold by itself.
>>
>> which has no impact on us or anyone who redistributes our packages.
>> That means it is okay provided that the license is added to our
>> product's LICENSE file noting what it applies to.
>
> Isn't this an additional restriction over and above the terms of AL2?
Only when it is sold as an individual typeface. It does not restrict
our software in any way.
> My understanding of our position (and I would be more than happy to be
> corrected on this) is that anything we include should not be more
> restrictive than AL2.
It isn't more restrictive when it is included.
> As I understand AL2, I can take any element (or elements) of an Apache
> distribution, package it/them however I like and (providing I meet the
> redistribution requirements of section AL2.4) sell them for as much as
> I can get away with.
No. You can take anything licensed by the ASF in that way. These
fonts are not licensed by the ASF.
> These don't appear to be compatible. Where have I got it wrong?
It is not our software. Compatible means that we can safely and
legally distribute our software in combination with theirs, which
we can under that license, and that the resulting package as a
whole can be redistributed under terms no more restrictive than
the Apache License terms. That clause does not restrict our
packages.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [classlib][awt] Default fonts needed for headless support (was
Re:[contributions][awt] Font library)
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:33 +0400, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
>>> 2007/7/16, Dmitriy Matveev <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>> We can take this bundle of fonts as a variant:
>>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>>>>
>>>> License is there:
>>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/License
>>> Is it possible to include these fonts to Harmony?
>
> It is a reworded Apache 1.1 license with one additional clause
>
> The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software
> package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software
> typefaces may be sold by itself.
>
> which has no impact on us or anyone who redistributes our packages.
> That means it is okay provided that the license is added to our
> product's LICENSE file noting what it applies to.
Isn't this an additional restriction over and above the terms of AL2?
My understanding of our position (and I would be more than happy to be
corrected on this) is that anything we include should not be more
restrictive than AL2.
As I understand AL2, I can take any element (or elements) of an Apache
distribution, package it/them however I like and (providing I meet the
redistribution requirements of section AL2.4) sell them for as much as
I can get away with.
These don't appear to be compatible. Where have I got it wrong?
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [classlib][awt] Default fonts needed for headless support (was Re:[contributions][awt] Font library)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:33 +0400, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
>> 2007/7/16, Dmitriy Matveev <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>> We can take this bundle of fonts as a variant:
>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>>>
>>> License is there:
>>> http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/License
>> Is it possible to include these fonts to Harmony?
It is a reworded Apache 1.1 license with one additional clause
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software
package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software
typefaces may be sold by itself.
which has no impact on us or anyone who redistributes our packages.
That means it is okay provided that the license is added to our
product's LICENSE file noting what it applies to.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org