> >>> "The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if > >>> the output, given its > >>> content, constitutes a covered work." > >> > >> Since you are embedding a font, which is itself a covered work, > >> unmodified into the document, an exception is required. The end. > > > > +1 > >> A theoretical dissenting view: >> >> The document is not software and is not a derivative of the font. >> Including the font with the document, which can be used without it, is >> mere aggregation. > >This is an academic distinction, all major electronic document formats >(odf, pdf, doc, html) can include js or vb active code > >The correct answer to the original question is that lack of the >exception produces legal incertitude, and good FLOSS citizens do *not* >want to expose their users to legal incertitude, so they add the >exception and the problem is solved. > >--
I think we need professional advice on this matter, ie a lawyer or lawyers. It's an important question. **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)