contributing new font package for xorg (fwd)

Jesse Barnes jbarnes at
Thu Aug 11 09:52:23 PDT 2005

On Thursday, August 11, 2005 7:39 am, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mer, 2005-08-10 at 20:14 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > I would think that the only issue is whether xorg can distribute
> > > a GPL font as part of it's package that is primarily MIT licensed
> > > without infecting everything to become GPL. Isn't that dealt with
> > > by keeping the GPL code isolated and clearly labeled? Fonts don't
> > > get linked into the codebase.
> >
> > No problem there, I think.
> I must disagree. The entire world of GPL fonts is a complete mess. It
> is not clear what a GPL font in a document means. It is not obvious
> how you provide a statement that the font is copyright and the font
> source code in each document using it.

I was only answering the part about Xorg distributing the font, assuming 
that no packages 'linked it in'.  Obviously each font is subject to the 
restrictions of its license, so some people may not want to use GPL 
fonts in their documents.

> Also remember US law on fonts is not the same as much of the rest of
> the planet. GPL is just not a font license, and never should be used
> as one.

I don't disagree, but I'm not aware of US font copyright precedence...

> Secondly X and many of the Xorg users (notably some BSD's)
> specifically want to avoid GPL material. Xorg has traditionally
> stayed "non-viral" so this would be a very large change in policy.

Well, as AlanC pointed out, there's not much point in Xorg distributing 
a bunch of fonts, they'll just be more tarballs.


More information about the xorg mailing list