>> Is there a meaningful difference in the two licenses for fonts? LGPL >> is necessary for code, which gets loaded at runtime to a closed-source >> executable, but fonts contain no code, and thus aren't loaded. > > A good point, but I'm not qualified to answer that. I suspect that the > SFC would be able to answer it, if it's a serious consideration. > > FWIW, a couple links: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts > > and the actual license: > http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=liberation-fonts.git;a=blob_plain;f=source/License.txt
The actual license contains the font exception. IANAL, but that would appear to resolve any transitive license problem that might otherwise arise from including Liberation fonts. --Juan
