From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Sep 18 2007 - 08:48:30 CDT
> Hans Aberg wrote...
> > The copyright holder has the distribution rights, but not the rights
> > of the indivudal rights, as long as there is no clash.
> Hmmmm... a licence is not equivalent to a commercial contract, because its
> document is not signed by the recipient. It's a form of unilateral
> contract from the licensor to the licencee.
It appears that this discussion has been confused with exactly the same
discussion occuring in another mailine list dedicated to speaking about
I think that those interested in this subject of font licencing should go
there. For example this list, where exactly the same subject is currently
being discussed (not specifically about fonts, but about licences in general
and their interpretation as contracts and how they are differentiated
depending on the legal system (cvil code or common law) in various
(this is the mailing list about open-source OSI licences approval process)
There are similar subjects discussed for free software licenced with the GPL
or compatible conducted by the FSF. They are also discussing the same
So this discussion should be made out of the Unicode mailing lists, because
it is duplicate, and there are better responses in those external lists with
more interesting people concerned and trained with legal issues.
I'll stop discussing this here, this was an error from me when managing long
mixed lists of messages from several mailing lists. Sorry for the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 18 2007 - 08:52:17 CDT