> > Why would subsetting be a problem? > > > > I don't see anything in the GPL which requires source for things > > which have been left out of the program being required.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 04:53:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > The subsetted font is not the preferred form of doing modifications to > the font. I agree that it's not the preferred form for doing modifications to the original font. But for modifications to the pdf file? If there's a better form for making modifications to the pdf file, then you should probably be using that. > Anyway, this isn't the case I'm really interested in. And if there's > real source code, it should be reasonably clear that the GPL is > impractical. I don't really understand this. I suspect I'm not thinking what you're thinking "real sourced code" means. > >> This does not deal with artwork that contains outlines derived from > >> the font (which was often used as a way around embedding, which is a > >> pretty recent development). Perhaps today, embedding can be used in > >> such cases, too? > > > > I don't understand this paragraph. > > In a drawing, you can include text either as an editable text object, > or as outlines created from the font (which cannot be edited as text). > In the 90s, outlines were often used so that you could send the > drawing to someone who didn't have those fonts. I don't know if this > practice is still common. Ok. From what you're saying here, embedding makes more sense -- in terms of having a modifiable document -- than outlines. That said, if the GPL is really a problem, and you're the copyright holder, you could always use BSD's license. -- Raul
