On Sunday 17 April 2005 02:36 pm, frank gaude' wrote: > Marvin Dickens wrote: > >Unless the document is a text document (ie yourdoc.txt), the font is > >embedded into the document and is part of the document. Much like > >stdio.h (A common header file in C) is used in c source files and > > therefore, the resulting binary. Because the gpl is viral in it's design > > (which is a good thing), embedded fonts infect whatever document they are > > embedded into with the GPL. > > > >This *exact* issue also plagues the gEDA project (Electronic design). The > >use of gpl'ed symbols and footprints makes any electronic design that uses > >them subject to the gpl. So, in this case, users of gEDA design and share > >their footprints and symbols under a "Free for use regardless of > > application" license. However, expecting users of fonts to design really > > good fonts because of this issue is crazy. So, IMHO, the gpl is going to > > have change regarding font licensing. > > Let's say I layout a masterpiece of graphic design and use commercial > fonts in it. I sell the printed-out design to a buyer. Does GPL apply? > In the material world it seems there is always a point at which black > and white turn into gray, eh? > > Seems no one has to design any fonts especially for Linux. Fonts, TTF, > OTF, PS, are all here already. Would a typographer wish to design a font > exclusively for an operating system? Don't think so.
Even so, none of this changes the current terms and conditions of how the GPL is applied to fonts - The GPL is very clear regarding it's own inherently viral nature and how it affects works GPL'ed code is embedded in. Best Marvin
