[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
using that.

> 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
> impractical.

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.


Reply to: