Re: Oxygen font licensing

At Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:47:08 -0800,
Dave Crossland wrote:
> 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?

In my case: Not at all. I do not want to take that risk, so I use no unfree images with free text. I try to stay away from unfree works wherever I can. because they restrict my freedom to change the things I work with. 

Fr that reason I deleted all non-GPL-compatibel fonts from my computer. I do not want to risk using one because it looks good, just to realize that I cannot use that for my own creations because I am not allowed to copy a missing letter from another font into it. Since I started using a keyboard layout with greek letters and mathematical symbols, that issue grew much bigger than bfore, because I more and more use Glyphs in my daily writing which are only available in a few fonts.

> I suggest that the simplest solution would be to make the Oxygen font
> available under GPLv2, GPLv3 and OFL.

That or LGPLv2 or later and OFL would be best in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Arne