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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/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. -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
