On Monday 18 April 2005 01:33 am, Craig Ringer wrote: > Gregory Pittman wrote: > > A lot of this is quite absurd. > > Now that, I can agree with. > > > I think the only question about the use of a GPL'd font has to do > > with the software that uses that font software, e.g., Scribus. > > I don't personally agree, much as I wish I could. On the other hand, the > questions "does it matter" and "will anybody actually care" should be > considered. That aside, being careful is usually wise. > > > I have no doubt that a very clear legal distinction can be made > > between the software that renders a document and the creative aspect > > of the document -- its design, layout, the verbal content of the text > > that may have been rendered in one kind of font or another. What you > > in a way are trying to suggest is that the GPL has extended itself to > > the letters of the alphabet -- I really don't think that anyone gets > > the rights to the alphabet. > > Not at all. The issue being discussed was largely with font embedding, > where the issue is the font code it self not its visual appearance. > > > All of the nail-biting going on is very much in line with the kind of > > FUD that Microsoft likes to stir up when it talks about how bad > > non-proprietary licenses are. What really gripes Microsoft is that > > the old days of simply stealing bits and chunks of others' code and > > then copyrighting it doesn't seem so easy anymore. > > I think we just strayed into reading-too-much-slashdot territory > personally. There has been a discussion of the technical issues of > whether the GPL /might/ apply to documents that use GPL fonts under some > circumstances. I don't see how FUD entered into it anywhere - unless you > are referring to the supremely enlightened discussion on Slashdot, > rather than the conversation on this list. I may not have peppered my > posts sufficiently with "but the chances are the authors don't care" > etc, but I thought it fairly darn obvious really. > > My personal view out of all this: > (a) There might be a technical issue with the license and font embedding > under some circumstances - no lawyers have popped up to say > (b) Chances are nobody cares, and even if they do the chance of action > on it seems utterly minute > (c) Keeping people informed isn't a bad idea anyway, so long as it's not > alarmist and stupid (see: Slashdot). > (d) People shouldn't be using software licenses for other works without > careful consideration of the actual effects.
Craig, A - D are, as you stated, what should be taken away from this discussion. I might add (Depends on your point of view...) that it's never a good idea to use gpl fonts to produce internal company documents of any kind. Best Marvin
