[OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Ven 7 juin 2013 20:23, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
>
> Le Ven 7 juin 2013 15:23, Vernon Adams a écrit :
>
>> This i what i pointed at earlier. The OFL defines a font's usage as
>> either
>> 'embedding' or 'distribution'.
>
> This is irrelevant. As noted during the GPLv3 review process, both
> 'derivative' and 'distribution' are specific legal terms a license can not
> redefine. A license writer that does not like the boundaries of those
> terms must either use different terms (like the GPL v3 did for conveyance)
> or explicitely state that a use, even though it is a distribution (or
> derivation) in legal terms is exempt from the conditions the licence
> imposes to derivatives or distribution as a whole.
>
> I don't see anywhere in the OFL text where embedding is exempt from
> distribution clauses. And you can't argue it is not distribution because
> legaly – it is.

(or to be exact: in most countries, it will be. The GPL writers didn't
like the fact IP law was not uniform and that they were not allowed to
posit in the license that 'distribution means what it means in US law'. So
they used conveyance instead and defined it pretty much the same way as
distribution in the US context)


-- 
Nicolas Mailhot