"Gee whiz," as they say in the States, here! I guess there is no reason to use gpl fonts if the authors of the font even remotely claim the content, too! We might as well confine ourselves to the proprietary fonts where they explicitly disavow the content; after all you paid for the use up front! But then, why use gpl fonts for anything but personal copy? it makes no sense. Yes, the gpl has been enforced and recognized (don't jump to conclusions! please.); but that was for unambiguous software and the challenge here in the USA is by no means resolved even as to software, although we hear there is some low level court recognition. The gpl is sweeping in its terms; but it has not been definitively litigated, as this, obviously, is a whirlpool especially on this particular issue. I am happy, though, to have provoked this sub-thread, which is likely to go on for some time. The wiki, I submit, should inform and warn of this issue since it has been explicitly been brought to the attention of the list. The lawyers call this 'fair warning.'
Bart Alberti
