This will be my last mail on this subject. The issues of GPL compatibility (of any license) is documented *extensively* elsewhere, and this list is for Pygame. On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:40 +0200, Magnus Lie Hetland wrote: > 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... The font license contains a requirement that is not a requirement of the GPL (viz, the one I didn't cut). Due to this, you cannot distribute the font "under the terms of the GPL" which is the requirement for creating a GPL-derived work. Therefore the font license is GPL-incompatible. The Python 2.3 license contains no such terms. > 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...) If I make a game, and include the current Pygame font, Pygame, my own code and graphics, and shared GPL (or GPL-compatible) code from other people, I can license the resulting work under the terms of the GPL, since every license involved is GPL-compatible. In my view, the "game" is a derivative work of Pygame (which includes the Pygame font), as well as everything else I borrowed code from or linked to. Some people say that no, the game isn't a derivative work of the data, only the code involved, because the data can be replaced. However, libraries can also be replaced with one with an equivalent API. So I don't see how this position is tenable without also claiming linking also doesn't create a derived work, which is a *much* weaker position on the GPL than most people take (though some do). It's definitely a weaker position on the GPL than Pygame has taken in the past, otherwise pygame.mixer would use something that didn't suck to load MP3s. > I thought GNOME was very GNU/GPL-oriented -- how come they include > Bitstream Vera in their releases if it's GPL incompatible? You'll have to ask GNOME that. The impression I got was that as long as they license was a free software license (and I'm not challenging the Vera license on that grounds, yet), they would opt for technical quality over GPL compatibility. There are lots of GPL-incompatible free software licenses. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part