The license for the MgOpen fonts seems almost identical to the Bistream Vera font license: http://www.ellak.gr/fonts/mgopen/index.en.html#license http://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts Currently our mgopen-fonts pacakge uses "Bitstream Vera" for its license tag, but a query came up in IRC as to whether they really are the same license. The Vera license included a note at the end, after the ALL CAPS section, about the use of certain names in advertising which the MgOpen license does not have, and the MgOpen license included one additional phrase in the third paragraph: "or if the modifications are accepted for inclusion in the Font Software itself by the each appointed Administrator."
Are these licenses sufficiently identical to have the same License: tag in Fedora?
- J<
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 15:10 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
The Vera license included a note at the end, after the ALL CAPS section, about the use of certain names in advertising which the MgOpen license does not have, and the MgOpen license included one additional phrase in the third paragraph: "or if the modifications are accepted for inclusion in the Font Software itself by the each appointed Administrator."
These differences are enough for the MgOpen font to merit its own license tag, use:
License: MgOpen
(added at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/ )
~spot
-
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Tom Callaway