Re: Licensing clarification on GnuMICR font (GPL)
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:20, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In my opinion, there is a little bit of vagueness in the following:
> This font may only be distributed with the license and the source code
> to the font intact. It's not exactly clear to me how the GNU GPL applies to
> fonts, but in my eyes, the font file "GnuMICR.raw" is the "source code" to
> this font, and the files "GnuMICR.pfa" and "GnuMICR.pfb" are the compiled
> versions. if you redistribute the "compiled" version, you must also
> distribute the "source" version.
> I think some people *might* interpret this to mean that you are
> requiring the source code to the font to be distributed even under
> circumstances where the GNU GPL would not require it. For instance, the
> GNU GPL has all that business about a written offer, good for three
> years, to give any third party, blah blah blah.
Ok, good point. Should have asked you folks before I put it out there.
:) That verbage is left over from 3 years ago, when all this was a
little newer to me. I missed it, I'll fix it up.
> I think if you simply identified the "GnuMICR.raw" file as the "source
> code" in your interpretation, and the files "GnuMICR.pfa" and
> "GnuMICR.pfb" as the "object code or executable form", that would be
> adequate. This uses the same terms as the GNU GPL itself, and should
> suffice to make your meaning clear -- at least if *I'm* understanding
> you correctly. :)
Yes, I think you are.
> > Anyway, if anyone was wanting to use this font, but felt that the license
> > violated DFSG, hopefully that's cleared up now. If not, please let me know.
> Thanks a lot for your efforts, and for being one of the brave few who's
> willing to work on Free fonts. (Some people think it's "crazy" or "too
> hard" to produce fonts that are as free as the software we use.) It's
> certainly a skill I don't possess.
Well, only for "technical" fonts - it's more like drafting than
I'll follow up when I've had time to tweak it a bit more.