On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, IRIE Shinsuke <irieshins...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote: >> As for bfont, it's license is also included. However, didn't see any >> requirements in cases font being bundled into executable itself. License >> might be enough, maybe not. Anyway, it was bundled like this since ancient >> ages and never caused issues. > > In cases font is bundled into executable, the font data part of the > executable can be considered as a derivative of the font software, > so restrictions of the font license should be inherited. > GPL doesn't allow any further restrictions without additional terms.
I don't know if this is really true. Is bundling something into the same executable really the same as what the GPL calls linking, does this actually make it a derivative work? If you bundle all data in a single installer exe, is that also linking? The font isn't executable code, it's data. So to me this doesn't obviously seem like a violation. >> Anyway, it was bundled like this since ancient >> ages and never caused issues. > > There has been the issue since ancient age indeed, but no one was > aware of that until I pointed out. > > Ton, did you investigate this issue? Ton is on vacation at the moment, and he won't be able to reply this week and the next, I don't know if he investigated this. As I understand it, you suspect this to be an issue, but none of us are lawyers, and we don't know if this is actually an issue. If I had to take I guess, I'd say it isn't. Brecht. _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
