Re: Oxygen font licensing
Dave Crossland <[email protected]> Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:47:08 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.licensing |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAEozd0w=5n8MmWcur=1bOa2S0Hf=0WEH7F7gwW=gCiEFcwypTA@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi all! Sorry about this, Vern sent me the thread and I see I misunderstood. On 25 January 2012 08:16, Dave Crossland <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard is suggesting that when a font is partially copied into a PDF > document, it can reasonably be considered separate to the combined > work of the document. Richard, I see you were not suggesting that :-) > Arne Babenhauserheide <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The problem is that the OFL might not extend to the GPL text, >> but the GPL text could well extend to the font. Which in my opinion >> also is how it should be: If there were an unfree font in a PDF, I >> might not be able to distribute changed versions of the text in >> the same format, because I would not be allowed to redistribute >> the font. If true, it would also be true of images/graphics that are also embedded in PDFs with GPL texts. How are non-free images used with GPL texts handled? I suggest that the simplest solution would be to make the Oxygen font available under GPLv2, GPLv3 and OFL. -- Cheers Dave