Luke, again I should say IANAL but it is the *intention* of the author of the software, especially when it is explicitly stated, that matters. IIRC the MySQL people use the same GPL as the kernel but say that any application using the interface they provide is considered by them to be derivative, so all graphical front-ends etc that use GPL-ed MySQL have to be GPL-ed as well. This is quite against the stand of the Linux kernel authors. But it is how the authors want the license to be interpreted. I suppose any court would respect that at least to an extent.
If James says clearly he does not consider any document using his font as a derivative work then that should be fine. Sent from my Android phone On Feb 4, 2012 1:11 AM, "Luke-Jr" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, February 03, 2012 1:48:56 PM Shriramana Sharma wrote: > > Luke, IANAL but AFAIK the font exception is merely a *clarification* that > > using this font in a document does not constitute a derivative work but > is > > merely "use" of the font so the document itself need not be GPL-ed. This > is > > however true even without the clarification being explicitly stated and > so > > you can perfectly use a GPL-ed font without any problems. > > IANAL either, but the law (and judge) define what is or is not a derivative > work. Based on history, I would be surprised if they ruled it was not. > > Unlike the Linux kernel clarification, the font exception is explicitly an > *exception* and there are notable legal opinions that without this > exception, > at least embedding the font in a document is a derivative work: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#allow-embedding > > However, I am satisfied that James taking this position on the mailing > list is > sufficient grounds to argue otherwise at least in this case, if it ever > became > a legal matter. >
