[tex-live] EC license
cherepan at mccme.ru
Sun Aug 30 21:41:33 CEST 2009
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:50:18 +0200, Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <mpg at elzevir.fr> wrote:
>> Sure, maintaning sane namespace is vital. But license is a wrong tool
>> for that. First, it doesn't work. Look, FSF says that the renaming
>> requirement is acceptable for latex only because it's easy to overcome
>> (see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#LPPL-1.2 ). And, of course,
>> a license of EC fonts doesn't have any say in naming of independently
>> created fonts.
>> Second, many renaming clauses are overreaching. LPPL permits to take
>> excerpts without restriction and that is great. The EC license doesn't.
>> Symbols for the intersection of T1 and T2* encodings in LH fonts are
>> taken from EC fonts. Restriction for names in this case doesn't look
>> useful (LH fonts can not be used as a replacement for EC fonts), it just
>> complicates the license situation.
> I think you're making good points here.
Mostly echoing what I've seen on debian-legal:-)
> They'll probably even more useful in a
> mail to the author, if you'd like to write him :-)
Consider it beta version:-)
> By the way, I wonder whether it would be realistic to put up some standard
> argumentation about why (strong) naming clauses are often undesirable, that one
> could point authors to
IMHO that's doubtful.
> (or get inspiration from)
That's much more probable.
> when asking them to reconsider
> their initial licence choice.
One of the problems is that we don't know a priori why author have
chosen one license or the other. Does s/he feel strongly about
renaming clause or it's a random choice?..
> Unfortunately it is hard to start a discussion about this point without getting
> rapidly to trolls or at least overstatements...
More information about the tex-live