On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:20, Branden Robinson wrote: > In my opinion, there is a little bit of vagueness in the following: > > This font may only be distributed with the license and the source code > to the font intact. It's not exactly clear to me how the GNU GPL applies > to > fonts, but in my eyes, the font file "GnuMICR.raw" is the "source code" to > this font, and the files "GnuMICR.pfa" and "GnuMICR.pfb" are the compiled > versions. if you redistribute the "compiled" version, you must also > distribute the "source" version. > > I think some people *might* interpret this to mean that you are > requiring the source code to the font to be distributed even under > circumstances where the GNU GPL would not require it. For instance, the > GNU GPL has all that business about a written offer, good for three > years, to give any third party, blah blah blah.
Ok, good point. Should have asked you folks before I put it out there. :) That verbage is left over from 3 years ago, when all this was a little newer to me. I missed it, I'll fix it up. > I think if you simply identified the "GnuMICR.raw" file as the "source > code" in your interpretation, and the files "GnuMICR.pfa" and > "GnuMICR.pfb" as the "object code or executable form", that would be > adequate. This uses the same terms as the GNU GPL itself, and should > suffice to make your meaning clear -- at least if *I'm* understanding > you correctly. :) Yes, I think you are. > > Anyway, if anyone was wanting to use this font, but felt that the license > > violated DFSG, hopefully that's cleared up now. If not, please let me know. > > Thanks a lot for your efforts, and for being one of the brave few who's > willing to work on Free fonts. (Some people think it's "crazy" or "too > hard" to produce fonts that are as free as the software we use.) It's > certainly a skill I don't possess. Well, only for "technical" fonts - it's more like drafting than artistry. :) I'll follow up when I've had time to tweak it a bit more. Thanks, -Eric
