Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <1321644947.165.YahooMailClassic@web113511.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:35:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
Reply-To: pfg@apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksog7F5fiOac8ruidvZUYVnzFueRCs852czSNm9AY5HOtAg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi;=0A=0A--- On Fri, 11/18/11, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:=0A=0A> =
Pedro Giffuni wrote:=0A> > Hi;=0A> >=0A> > OFL has two big issues:=0A> > 1)=
 It's copyleft so we cannot put it in the=0A> repository.=0A> > 2) It canno=
t be redistributed on it's own: it has=0A> > to be bundled with software, s=
o we cannot make it=0A> > available as and add-on package by itself.=0A> >=
=0A> =0A> I don't see the problem here.=A0 It says, "Neither the=0A> Font S=
oftware nor=0A> any of its individual components, in Original or Modified=
=0A> Versions,=0A> may be sold by itself."=A0 But we're not selling the=0A>=
 font in any form, bundled or not.=0A> =0A=0AStill that is a limitation and=
 I am not sure it fits=0Awithin ASF policies. The code produced by the ASF =
can=0Abe resold and users expect to be able to unbundle and=0Arebundle as t=
hey see fit.=0A=0A> Why can't we just download it as part of the build=0A> =
script?=A0 It is not=0A> in SVN then, and we only include it in the binary =
release?=0A>=0A=0AI think we can do this, yes.=0A =0A> This looks acceptabl=
e per: (1)=0A> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification=0A=
> =0A> > The bitstream vera / dejavu fonts are not without=0A> issues:=0A> =
> " ... no copy of one or more of the Font Software=0A> typefaces=0A> > =A0=
may be sold by itself."=0A> >=0A> =0A> Again, we are not selling it "by its=
elf".=0A>=0A=0AI think the "no-sell" clause contradicts the=0A"Software Lic=
ense Criteria".=0A=0ABut I am not in the business of being a PITA for=0Athe=
 project, I just think this has to be reviewed=0Aby legal.=0A=0AWhile here =
a general question: do we have to mention=0A"Category-B" software in the NO=
TICE file?=0AI say we shouldn't since we are not including any=0Asource cod=
e for that in in the SVN server or in=0Athe releases, we will just use the =
binaries if=0Athey are available.=0A=0APedro.=0A=0APedro.