Gregory Pittman wrote: > A lot of this is quite absurd.
Now that, I can agree with. > I think the only question about the use of a GPL'd font has to do > with the software that uses that font software, e.g., Scribus. I don't personally agree, much as I wish I could. On the other hand, the questions "does it matter" and "will anybody actually care" should be considered. That aside, being careful is usually wise. > I have no doubt that a very clear legal distinction can be made > between the software that renders a document and the creative aspect > of the document -- its design, layout, the verbal content of the text > that may have been rendered in one kind of font or another. What you > in a way are trying to suggest is that the GPL has extended itself to > the letters of the alphabet -- I really don't think that anyone gets > the rights to the alphabet. Not at all. The issue being discussed was largely with font embedding, where the issue is the font code it self not its visual appearance. > All of the nail-biting going on is very much in line with the kind of > FUD that Microsoft likes to stir up when it talks about how bad > non-proprietary licenses are. What really gripes Microsoft is that > the old days of simply stealing bits and chunks of others' code and > then copyrighting it doesn't seem so easy anymore. I think we just strayed into reading-too-much-slashdot territory personally. There has been a discussion of the technical issues of whether the GPL /might/ apply to documents that use GPL fonts under some circumstances. I don't see how FUD entered into it anywhere - unless you are referring to the supremely enlightened discussion on Slashdot, rather than the conversation on this list. I may not have peppered my posts sufficiently with "but the chances are the authors don't care" etc, but I thought it fairly darn obvious really. My personal view out of all this: (a) There might be a technical issue with the license and font embedding under some circumstances - no lawyers have popped up to say (b) Chances are nobody cares, and even if they do the chance of action on it seems utterly minute (c) Keeping people informed isn't a bad idea anyway, so long as it's not alarmist and stupid (see: Slashdot). (d) People shouldn't be using software licenses for other works without careful consideration of the actual effects. -- Craig Ringer
