Yes, of course. But what you have overlooked is that this is a choice
between three licenses. The Schola fonts, which we currently use, are
licensed under the LPPL version 1.3c. So if you choose that from the
three options given, then there is no licensing change at all. Just
choose that option and you have no issues. As URW says on that same
page: The URW++ Core 35 fonts, Version 2.0 are distributed under the GNU
Affero General Public License, Version 3 with an exemption, The LaTeX
Project Public License, Version 1.3c and the SIL Open Font License,
Version 1.1. If you use the fonts, you may choose which license is most
suitable for you. If you extend or modify the fonts, you may release
your modified versions under any combination of the three licenses.
Please consult the LICENSE document for the text of the licenses. Please
note that the three licenses apply only to the original Version 2.0
fonts, as released by URW++. So, let's just choose the LPPL and there
are no issues.
Daniel Benjamin Miller <dbmil...@dbmiller.org> writes: >/Right now,
the default text fonts in Lilypond are TeX Gyre Schola,/ >/which is
a variant of URW Century Schoolbook. However, there are some/
>/issues with the fonts, in my view. For instance, look at the
tittles/ >/of the i and j: they have been shrunken and lowered,
unlike in all the / >/professional versions of the Century
Schoolbook design./ > >/I suggest that we switch to the 2.0 release
of the URW fonts (Schola/ >/is based on the 1.0 release). The font
is called 'C059' and is/ >/available here:
https://github.com/URWTypeFoundry/Core_35
<https://github.com/URWTypeFoundry/Core_35>. In/ >/comparison with
Schola, C059 adds monotonic Greek and Cyrillic support/ >/(Schola
has "Greek" but its characters are unusable). The only/
>/disadvantage is a slightly smaller Latin-Extended glyph supply in
C059/ >/vs. Schola./ The URW++ Core 35 fonts, Version 2.0 are
distributed under the GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3
with an exemption, The LaTeX Project Public License, Version 1.3c
and the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. We don't want to put
LilyPond under the Affero GPL and the exemption does not apply to
including the fonts with a GPL program (which would make it silly to
choose Affero GPL in the first place, but I chose to check anyway).
-- David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
