Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Freedom to take freedom

[Dave Crossland]

On 22/01/2008, Alex Hudson <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 20:29 +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > On 22/01/2008, Alex Hudson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > The license in this case is GPL + extra bits. The text of the license
> > > says licensees may not add extra restrictions. But I still have to pass
> > > it on under the license I received it - GPL + bits - because without
> > > standing in copyright, or the right to sub-license, I can't change the
> > > license on the work.
> >
> > The text of the license says licensees may not add extra restrictions
> > other than those in the license, and if there are other restrictions
> > of any kind (typically patent ones) then you can't distribute the work
> > at all.
> >
> > That means, you can't redistribute the red hat fonts to me. But I can
> > get them from Red Hat myself, and change them privately, whereas I
> > can't change the Microsoft ones privately and why I initially
> > recommend doing so to someone :-)
>
> I don't know where your second paragraph comes from - I'm perfectly
> entitled to distribute the Red Hat fonts to you. You don't get the
> license from me; you get it from Red Hat - it's clear on that (to me, at
> least, sec.6 - GPLv3 is even more explicit on this point, no
> sublicenses).
>
> The GPL doesn't require or use a sublicense, you don't receive a license
> from the person who gave you the software - you get it from the
> copyright holder. Given they are the licensors, it doesn't matter what
> restrictions they append to the license in terms of internal
> consistency; the license text is silent on the matter as far as I can
> see.

Okay, you are persuading me that the Liberation family is
redistributable verbatim.

But if I download it from Red Hat, and the modify it and remove all
Red Hat trademarks (apart from in copyright notices) what terms do I
redistribute my modified version under?

-- 
Regards,
Dave