contributing new font package for xorg
Edward G.J. Lee
edt1023 at ms17.hinet.net
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
> 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
> 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
More information about the xorg