Re: Oxygen font licensing

At Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:37:54 -0800,
Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 26 January 2012 14:19, Arne Babenhauserheide <[email protected]> wrote:
> > At Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:47:08 -0800, Dave Crossland wrote:
> >> On 25 January 2012 08:16, Dave Crossland <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > 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?
> >
> > In my case: Not at all.
> 
> Fair enough :-)
> 
> However, Richard wrote:
> 
> On 25/01/12 15:00, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >    It seems reasonable to argue that the text and the font are two
> >    separate works even if packaged into a PDF file.  A text and a font
> >    seem separate by nature -- not like two program modules that are
> >    combined into one program.
> 
> GPLv3 says Corresponding Source "does not include the work's System
> Libraries, or general-purpose tools or **generally available free
> programs which are used unmodified** in performing those activities
> but which are not part of the work" This seems absolutely explicit
> that when an unmodified OFL font is distributed with a GPLv3 program,
> it is okay.

Unmodified is the keyword here. That is not the case, which is why we distribute all used fonts in our source repos.

> it seems to me that even proprietary fonts are not subject to the GPL
> copyleft.

(see previous mail about exchanging fonts)

Best wishes,
Arne