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 19:37 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > On 22/01/2008, Alex Hudson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > I did already explain that "You" refers to the licensee (last sentence,
> > > sec. 0), not licensor. The licensee isn't adding the further
> > > restrictions.
> >
> > So if you download the fonts from rh.com and distribute them to me,
> > can you do so only under the "pure" GPL?
>
> No, the same terms as I received them under: this is how the copyleft
> works.
>
> 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 :-)

-- 
Regards,
Dave