Re: GNOME Font Copyright
Scripsit Mark Wielaard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 21:02, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The big problem that glares out at me is the "cannot sell by itself"
> > clause. I vaguely remember that d-legal considers that to be a silly
> > restriction that has no effect on freeness, but I could be wrong.
> It is certainly not in the spirit of the DFSG but most people seem to
> read DFSG 1 as allowing it.
What "the spirit" is supposed to be is always debatable. My impression
is that the words "as a component of an aggregate software
distribution containing programs from several different sources" was
inserted into DFSG #1 exactly in order to allow such silly but
harmless licenses. (The other possible function of that phrase is
covered by DFSG #9 already).
> I found the difference between "Fonts" and "Font Software" confusing.
> What they call software refers to the associated documentation files. I
> assume that the permissions (and restrictions) are for both the "Fonts"
> and the "Font Software". But (not being a native speaker) this is not
> immediatly clear.
I think the point is that in some jurisdictions (notably the U.S.)
the legal theory is that the lettershapes themselves are not subject
to copyright but that rasterizing "hints" that help prevent jaggies on
low-resolution devices for scalable vector fonts are. I think that the
license authors are simply trying to hedge their bets here, to make
sure that the license is applicable to the maximum possible extent in
any given jurisdiction.
Henning Makholm "I ... I have to return some videos."