On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 13:51 -0400, Louis Desjardins wrote: > This is of upmost importance as it will prevent lots of people from > using a GPL font... I would be interested in knowing and > understanding exactly how it can be considered a derived work of a > font to use it to layout a publication? I am not a lawyer but I find > rather restrictive (and, to say the least, astonishing) a GPL element > "GPLizing" a document just like that.
After reading Marvin's comments, I have to agree with him unfortunately. It probably does work that way, what with embedding and the parallels between doc->ps/pdf/raster/print and srccode->binary . That's pretty stupid IMHO, but mostly it shows why one should be careful about picking up a software license that "looks cool" and using it for another type of work. > A licensed font from Adobe > doesn't make a document created with it an Adobe belonging. Well, no, it doesn't. I think you'll find that Adobe explicitly gives you a license to use the font in your documents and permits "reproduction" in embedded forms. Remember that the font comes with a proprietary license that's really AFAIK a contract that sets out what you can and cannot do with the font. -- Craig Ringer
