Re: Copyleft font licensing
> > Why would subsetting be a problem?
> > I don't see anything in the GPL which requires source for things
> > which have been left out of the program being required.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 04:53:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The subsetted font is not the preferred form of doing modifications to
> the font.
I agree that it's not the preferred form for doing modifications to
the original font.
But for modifications to the pdf file? If there's a better form for
making modifications to the pdf file, then you should probably be
> Anyway, this isn't the case I'm really interested in. And if there's
> real source code, it should be reasonably clear that the GPL is
I don't really understand this. I suspect I'm not thinking what you're
thinking "real sourced code" means.
> >> This does not deal with artwork that contains outlines derived from
> >> the font (which was often used as a way around embedding, which is a
> >> pretty recent development). Perhaps today, embedding can be used in
> >> such cases, too?
> > I don't understand this paragraph.
> In a drawing, you can include text either as an editable text object,
> or as outlines created from the font (which cannot be edited as text).
> In the 90s, outlines were often used so that you could send the
> drawing to someone who didn't have those fonts. I don't know if this
> practice is still common.
Ok. From what you're saying here, embedding makes more sense -- in
terms of having a modifiable document -- than outlines.
That said, if the GPL is really a problem, and you're the copyright
holder, you could always use BSD's license.