Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> writes: >> On 31 Oct 2019, at 21:31, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >>> All those parts should be LGPL, and also included headers, I believe: >>> Not GPL, because that would legal technically force copyright >>> limitations on the output, and not public domain, because then one >>> could exploit the inputs in ways you do not want. But check with the >>> experts. >> >> I think this kind of stuff should just be exempt from licensing (namely >> declared public domain) like stub code in GCC. It doesn't survive into >> PDF anyway (since PDF is not programmable and so the PostScript-to-PDF >> conversion executes the code in question rather than converting it) and >> it is very unusual to distribute PostScript these days instead of >> executing it right away in the form of some document processing >> workflow. >> >> So that is indeed something that would warrant getting separate >> appropriate licensing attention, but in most use cases it would end up >> not being relevant since there are few workflows where a PostScript file >> ends up as something to be distributed. > > It is only a problem if code survives in the output and is > copyrightable. Like glyph designs, for example, there are in the works > new microtonal accidentals, the design of which I figure would be > copyrightable, and take a long time to develop. Would you want them to > be in the public domain? It would mean that the design could be > exploited freely without acknowledgement. With LGPL, any altered > design must have the same license, but the glyphs can be used freely > in publications.
If I remember correctly, our fonts have already been relicensed under some typical free font license several years ago. -- David Kastrup
