On Jul 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Sausset François wrote:

> Le 19 juil. 2010 à 21:04, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
>> Apple's legal department would strongly prefer for WebKit's license terms to 
>> remain simple. We prefer everything to be licensed under LGPL or BSD terms, 
>> or at the very least a license which is clearly compatible with LGPL and 
>> BSD. Is this license LGPL-compatible for cases where the fonts are embedded 
>> as data in software?
> See answers 1.4 to 1.7 in the following official FAQ of the license:
> http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=OFL-FAQ_web
> It is compatible.

I don't see a claim that the font is LGPL-compatible when embedded in a 
program. The FSF discussion of this license doesn't say, unfortunately.

> And as the font is only used by DumpRenderTree for tests, the WebKit API by 
> itself does not need it at all.
> So, Safari, Chrome/Chromium, etc need to include neither the font, nor the 
> license.

Good point. However, at least some versions of DumpRenderTree build with test 
fonts embedded directly into the binary. 

>> For support material that has unusual license terms, another possibility is 
>> to have WebKit's support scripts automatically download it, rather than 
>> checking it directly into the repository.
> CSS font-face could be a workaround but a persistent location should be found 
> (and I suppose WebKit website has the same licensing issues?). And with that 
> solution MathML layout tests could not be run without a network connection.

I'm not suggesting WebFonts. Rather, the fonts could be downloaded on demand 
when running the tests if not present, the way we do with some Python modules.


webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to