>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.
What about all this work being processed and RIPed ? Then, there is no more fonts... just the appearance of it. There is no embedding either. So does or can the GPL apply to a RIPed file and then to a printed document ? Louis > >> 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 > >_______________________________________________ >Scribus mailing list >Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de >http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus
