<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>> >>> "The output from running a covered work is covered by
this License only if<BR>> >>> the output, given its<BR>>
>>> content, constitutes a covered work."<BR>> >><BR>>
>> Since you are embedding a font, which is itself a covered work,<BR>>
>> unmodified into the document, an exception is required. The
end.<BR>> ><BR>> > +1<BR>> <BR>>> A theoretical dissenting
view:<BR>>> <BR>>> The document is not software and is not a
derivative of the font.<BR>>> Including the font with the document, which
can be used without it, is<BR>>> mere aggregation.<BR>><BR>>This is
an academic distinction, all major electronic document formats<BR>>(odf, pdf,
doc, html) can include js or vb active code<BR>><BR>>The correct answer to
the original question is that lack of the<BR>>exception produces legal
incertitude, and good FLOSS citizens do *not*<BR>>want to expose their users
to legal incertitude, so they add the<BR>>exception and the problem is
solved.<BR>><BR>>-- <BR></DIV>
<DIV>I think we need professional advice on this matter, ie a lawyer or lawyers.
It's an important question.</DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV CLASS="aol_ad_footer" ID="f3a2d7aa627e5288fe036089007a71d"><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making <a href="http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026">headlines</a>.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>