harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Petrenko" <alexey.a.petre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][awt] Default fonts needed for headless support (was Re:[contributions][awt] Font library)
Date Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:33:33 GMT
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 <alexey.a.petrenko@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 <fielding@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 <matveev.dmitriy@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
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message