[Savannah-hackers-public] [gnu.org #221247] Needing clarifications regarding compatibility between the GPL and FreeType Project License

[Dave Turner via RT]

> address@hidden - Tue Feb 08 17:44:21 2005]:
> 
> Dear all,

Hi.  I am also David Turner, but a *different* David Turner.  Just to
avoid confusion in the thread which may follow, please refer to me as
"Novalis", which is another name I use.

> Our final conclusion is that, indeed, the FTL and GPL are compatible,
> for reasons that I'll try to explain in more details below. We would
> appreciate if you could give a second look to the license and confirm
> what we've found, or enlighten us for any non-trivial incompatibility
> that we could not really spot.
> 
> My belief is that the license was incorrectly judged incompatible
> because it includes a clause related to advertising that can mistaken 
> for the infamous "advertising clause" of the original BSD license 
> (which is not compatible).
> However, our own clause is quite different, and clearly unrestrictive.
> 
> Your opinion on the subject would be deeply appreciated. We would like
> to stop the dual-licensing and make it very clear that it is not
> needed anymore (and never was in the first place)

I don't know what RMS told you.  It's possible that he's seen something
I haven't.

I can see how this license could be incompatible.  It can be read to
have a specific format requirement for the license text -- a certain
file with a certain name.  But if it's the copyright holders' intent
that it be compatible, then that requirement could be read to simply say
that this text has to be in some reasonable place.  If you (and the
other two Freetype hackers) say that you think the license is
compatible, that FT can be distributed under the terms of the GPL, then
I'll submit the FTL to our licensing committee for an official evaluation.

> Finally, notice that there exist several versions of the FTL. These
> differ only in cosmetic attributes (e.g. typos); all versions
> correspond to exactly the same set of permissions and restrictions, 
> and should thus be judged compatible as well (that is, unless you 
> could prove us otherwise)

I can't comment on a license I haven't seen.  A quick Google search
shows that some other versions look similar, but if you have concerns
about some variant, please show me that variant.
-- 
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation