Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 11:37 +0000, Rob Myers a écrit : > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > 2008/12/30 Jon Stanley <jonstan...@gmail.com>: > >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:47 PM, <fontfree...@aol.com> wrote: > >> > >>> "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. -- Nicolas Mailhot
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
