contributing new font package for xorg

Edward G.J. Lee edt1023 at
Mon Aug 15 02:13:35 PDT 2005

On Sun, Aug 14, 2005, Glynn Clements wrote:

> >   To embed font into pdf/ps is optional, not necessary.
> Nobody is arguing about the case where a document file merely
> references a font by name, only the case where the font is embedded.

  This is try to explain font vs. document is seperated with my
  poor English.:)

> I don't think the problem is with the definition of a derivate work. A
> document which embeds a copy of a font is rightly (IMHO) a derivative
> work of the font.

  If we don't have a clear definition of `derivate work' in the
  license, you can't distinguish what the license can affect.

  GPL is a software license, document may/is not a software, how
  can you use software license to affect non-software matter? Just
  like firmware is not software, so GPL may not affect on (all the
  part of)firmware. They are not the same legal subject matter
  unless you have a clear definition of `derivate work' in your
  license and/or laws of your country let you have the right to do
  this affection.

> I would agree that the GPL isn't a particularly suitable licence for
> fonts, due to its "contagious" nature; i.e. if you want to embed a GPL
> font in a document, you would have license the document as a whole
> (including the text) under the GPL. You could also release the text
> under other licences, but you can't avoid granting the recipient the
> rights specified in the GPL.

  My opinion is due to GPL is a software license, not because of
  `contagious' nature(this nature is the right of copyright holder
  if the legal effect is on the reasonable matter.)

  If you don't have a clear limitation of legal effect on the license
  you are useing, then maybe a GPLed human will come out someday(because
  you use GPL software and are infected by GPL. Of course this is a
  joke though.:)


More information about the xorg mailing list