Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com> wrote:
If the name was so inconsequential, why did the author choose a
license that forbid _changing_ the name ?

It is one thing to get distros to cooperate together one large project
like libreoffice, it is quite another to purposefully try to piss-off
their respective Marketing Dept.

Norbert (who is not working for any distro, but can imagine why they
would find that irritating)

IMHO it is really wrong to imply we’re trying to do free advertising
by suggesting the addition of the Ubuntu font to LibreOffice. That’s
not the intent, and great typography shouldn’t go to the trash basket
just because some don’t like the name. It is my desire that Windows
users of LibreOffice —those who don’t know a bit about Linux
distros—get another set of great fonts for their use and pleasure.
(See also: http://pad.lv/703990 “Can the Ubuntu font license avoid
advertising-style clause?”)

-- 
Adolfo

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.