[Scribus] Re: GPLed fonts
Mon Apr 18 04:06:28 CEST 2005
Marvin Dickens wrote:
>That correct if a GPL font is involved. In the case of graphics, unless a font
>is involved, the image is a private work (That is, if it's not derived from a
>GPL'ed graphic image).
>People need to understand the implications of the licenses that govern the
>software they chose to use.
A lot of this is quite absurd. I think the only question about the use
of a GPL'd font has to do with the software that uses that font
software, e.g., Scribus. I have no doubt that a very clear legal
distinction can be made between the software that renders a document and
the creative aspect of the document -- its design, layout, the verbal
content of the text that may have been rendered in one kind of font or
another. What you in a way are trying to suggest is that the GPL has
extended itself to the letters of the alphabet -- I really don't think
that anyone gets the rights to the alphabet.
All of the nail-biting going on is very much in line with the kind of
FUD that Microsoft likes to stir up when it talks about how bad
non-proprietary licenses are. What really gripes Microsoft is that the
old days of simply stealing bits and chunks of others' code and then
copyrighting it doesn't seem so easy anymore.
One of the things that Microsoft and others especially enjoy about this
kind of FUD is that they also know it is unlikely to ever be resolved.
This is not likely to see the light of day in a courtroom -- who would
spend money to bring such a suit? What would they expect to gain from
it? There may be a day in court for the GPL, but it certainly won't be
about GPL'd fonts.
More information about the scribus