On 3/28/11 12:48 PM, "Florian Jung" <florian.a.j...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 28.03.2011 20:21, schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Graham Percival >> <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: >> >>>>> As far as permission to use it the current font under GPL2, I think >>>>> Han-Wen >>>>> and Jan need to give that permission. >>>>> >>>> i assume Han-Wen and Jan also read that mailing list, so i'm asking for >>>> permission to use the current font :) >>>> >>> I believe that *everybody* who has worked on the feta fonts would need >>> to give that permission. You can find this list by looking at the git >>> changelog messages for those files, but I do not recommend going >>> further with this. I really recommend that you either use the old >>> GPLv2 feta fonts, or use GPLv3 (possibly 3+) for your application. >>> >>> It's unfortunate that copyright law gets in the way like this, but it does. >>> >> Well, only if anyone decides to make an issue of this, and it's not >> like we claim any sort of rights over images of the font when we put >> them on paper or screen. I think you can just go ahead with muse2. >> >> I'd recommend using freetype for the rendering instead btw, as you'll >> be more flexible wrt symbol sizes on screens of different device >> resolutions. >> > may i read that as a "feel free to use the font, if someone decides that > he doesn't like that, he will kindly ask you to use another font instead > of killing you immediately" :)? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the font could be GPL3 and the rest of the package could be GPL2, because the font is separable from the rest of the package. The font isn't the program, it's a tool used by the program. So I don't know why you couldn't distribute Feta under GPL3 along with muse2 under GPL2. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
