«前の日記(2011-04-30) 最新 次の日記(2011-05-04)» 編集

ポケットを空にして。

1985|10|
2004|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2005|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2006|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2007|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2008|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2009|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2010|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2011|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2012|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2013|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2014|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|
2100|01|

「人の心に残るというのが大事」と言う話。

何か連絡がある場合はメールでどうぞ(過去の日記へのツッコミは基本的にみていません)
プレゼントは随時受け付けております :-) ここ最近のツッコミ/トラックバックリスト。


2011-05-01 [長年日記]

Ubuntu Font License 1.0 は DFSG 不適合じゃないの?という話

FTPMaster の話を見ると、definition 2 が問題だとか

So, the interesting part is §2, which is why it is listed last. And as a
short summary: We think that aspects of this section make the license
unsuitable for works in Debian main.
Taking §2b first.  This subsection is in itself ok, DFSG 4 does allow to
require a different name for a distribution of modified version,
although "similar names" seems to be a bit of a gray area.
The major issues arise in subsections §2a and c.  These two subsections
include between them an invariant section. This type of invariance is
not something covered by DFSG 4. DFSG 4 tries to allow a copyright
holder to say "If you change foo, you must not call it foo", but does
not have similar provisions to allow a copyright holder to say things
such as "You must not call foo by any other name" or "If you change foo,
the name you must use is bar".  Especially noting the parenthetical
statement at the end of DFSG 4, we don't believe it would be in the
spirit or intent of the DFSG to make the leap that would be required to
say that §2a and c are allowed by this clause.  The vote[0] taken by the
Debian project relating to the GFDL also reinforces the project's
dislike for invariance in main.  It is also unclear as to whether "font
name" refers to the name of the font file on disk, the package name,
some form of internal font name or a combination of these.  If the
reference is to the name of the font file or the internal font name,
this becomes a restriction on how you can modify the software, which
also fails to comply with DFSG 3.
Additionally §2c states exactly how you must change the name to follow
the license, which will cause issues if you want to combine multiple
fonts licensed using this license into a new derivative work, possibly
even making this impossible.  This on its own is not a reject reason.