Re: Font license recommendation

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Boris Veytsman <borisv@lk.net>

> It seems that you consider the inclusion of fonts to be the same as
> linking of libraries. Then LGPL might be what you need.

The LGPL's rule would mean that it would be forbidden to distribute
compound works "linked" in such a way that the font cannot be changed
independently of the rest of the contents. In some jurisdiction this
might prevent the production of hardcopy documents using the typeface.

It would be better to give an explicit permission to use the font
freely in documents. The case is so special that it is not advisable
to rely on analogies with software.

With such an explicit permission, the GPL would seem to be suitable -
the metafont (or whatever) source could play the role of .. well,
"source", and bitmapped renderings or translations into write-only
formats (postscript type 1??) would count as "binaries".

Of course, depending on one's personal preferences, a BSD style
license could do the job, too.

-- 
Henning Makholm                      "They are trying to prove a hypothesis,
                             they are down here gathering data every season,
                       they're publishing results in peer-reviewed journals.
                     They're wrong, I think, but they are still scientists."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org