Interesting outcome. Does that mean I don't have to mention it at if it's included in a GPLv2 package? As a footnote, Werner Lemberg asked Eddie Kohler a while back to remove his (that is Eddie's) changes from the file because of the "No modification, editing or other alteration of this document is allowed" clause in the license. They, meaning Adobe, seem to contradict themselves later on with: # Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a # copy of this documentation file, to create their own derivative works # from the content of this document to use, copy, publish, distribute, # sublicense, and/or sell the derivative works, and to permit others to do # the same, provided that the derived work is not represented as being a # copy or version of this document. which allows modifications as long as you don't attribute them to Adobe. So Eddie can change it, but has to call it "Eddie's glyph list". LOL. On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 22:11 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: >> 2) Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license >> [http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and >> determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it? > > License: MIT > > Its a screwed up variant, but the end result is the same. > > ~spot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-legal-list mailing list > Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
