contributing new font package for xorg

[Glynn Clements]

Edward G.J. Lee wrote:

> > 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.

The term is intended to mean "anything which copyright law considers
to be a derivative work". Section 0 of the GPL says:

>   0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
> a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
> under the terms of this General Public License.  The "Program", below,
> refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
> means either the Program or ANY DERIVATIVE WORK UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW:

[emphasis mine]

Remember: the GPL is a licence, not a contract. It grants you rights;
it doesn't take them away. If the GPL included a definition of a
derivative work which didn't exactly match legal precedent in the area
of copyright law:

a) anything which was covered by precedent but wasn't covered by the
GPL's definition wouldn't be granted the permission given by the GPL,
and thus would be prohibited by copyright law, and

b) anything which wasn't covered by precedent wouldn't be covered by
copyright law, and thus wouldn't require the author's permission, so
what the GPL said would be irrelevant.

>  GPL is a software license, document may/is not a software,

Well, PostScript programs are definitely software in the conventional
sense of the word. Other forms of electronic data may or may not be
software. But it doesn't matter; even if they aren't software, they
may still be "original works" as defined by copyright law.

> how can you use software license to affect non-software matter?

Quite easily. To return to Section 0 of the GPL:

>   0. This License applies to any program OR OTHER WORK which contains
> a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
> under the terms of this General Public License.

[again, emphasis mine]

Some of the terminology used in the licence may not have a clear
meaning when applied to something which isn't a computer program, but
the courts regularly deal with far more ambiguous issues, so I'm sure
they'll figure it out.

> Just like firmware is not software,

Huh? I'd say that firmware is most definitely software. A specific
type of software, but still 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.

A "derivative work" is whatever copyright law (as interpreted by the
courts) considers it to be. Roughly, it's anything which you cannot
legally copy or distribute without the author's permission.

As I said at the beginning, the GPL is meant to cover anything which
it needs to cover. If the courts decide that X is a derivative work of
e.g. the Linux kernel, then the permissions granted by the copy of the
GPL included with the Linux kernel also apply to X. For all X.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>