Re: [Devel] Re: [Fonts]Another approach to text in X

[Vadim Plessky]

On Wednesday 30 January 2002 01:25, Alexander Gelfenbain wrote:
|   I received the following clarification from our legal people:
|
|       The changes to the BSD were intended to remain consistent with the Open
| Source Definition stated by OSI. As such, the statement about nuclear
| facilities is a notice and not a restriction per se.
|
|       The BSD+ also re-states the limitation of liability provision consistent
| with current law.
|
|   I don't think any additional interpretation is needed: the clause about
|   nuclear facilities is a notice and not a restriction.
|
|   Regards,
|   AG
|

ok, thanks a lot for clarification!
As people on these lists had some concerns, I guess you need to make some 
clear statement on ST license & nuclear facilities, so ST can be integrated 
into leading Linux distributions (I guess packagers of those not always read 
XF Fonts list...)
 
|   On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:03:31PM +0600, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote:
|   > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Alexander Gelfenbain wrote:
|   > > I can confirm that the license ST will be released with is "BSD+"
|   > > which is standard BSD with the following clause:
|   > >
|   > >   * You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
|   > > indended * for use in the design, construction, operation or
|   > > maintenance of any * nuclear facility.
|   >
|   >   Sorry if it is a stupid question (I'm not a lawyer :), but does
|   > this clause mean that if ST somehow gets into Red Hat, SuSE or some
|   > other distro, we (see my signature) and other high-energy physics labs
|   > will have no legal right to use these distros?
|   >
|   >   Can you please ask your legal department to make that statement
|   > more clear?
|   >
|   >   TIA,
|   >           Dmitry

-- 

Vadim Plessky
http://kde2.newmail.ru  (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html
KDE mini-Themes
http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/