[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [pygame] 1.7 releases?



Joe Wreschnig <piman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
[snip]
> > That reads pretty clearly as "use it, change it, attribute it,
> > just don't charge directly for it"
> 
> Which is GPL-incompatible.

I'm not really arguing against you here -- but could you clarify how
this is GPL-incompatible? The GPL is a bit confusing to me at times...

The Bitstream page says "The fonts cannot be packaged by themselves
for sale, but can be sold with any software"...

Do you mean that you can't distribute it bundled with GPL'ed code? Or
that you can't redistribute it under the GPL? The latter would also go
for, say, Python, but the Python license has explicitly been accepted
as GPL compatible...

Just wondering.

> The only thing that saves it in most eyes is that you don't link the
> font to the GPLd code, so it's still legal.  Stronger
> interpretations of the GPL would disagree and say that the GPL
> speaks of derived works (and so dependencies in general), not
> linking.

But the software would then be "derivative" of the font, not vice
versa? And the font license here does *not* speak of derivative works,
does it? (Not in the GPL sense, anyway...)

I thought GNOME was very GNU/GPL-oriented -- how come they include
Bitstream Vera in their releases if it's GPL incompatible?

Just curious/eager to learn more about the problems associated with
license combinations :)

- M

-- 
Magnus Lie Hetland                    Fall seven times, stand up eight
http://hetland.org                                  [Japanese proverb]