I know this is no legal defense, but James really does not sound like he
is of a mind to take people to court for using his fonts.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
-----Original Message-----
From: Luke-Jr
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 12:41
To: [email protected]
Cc: Shriramana Sharma ; James Kass
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge
On Friday, February 03, 2012 1:48:56 PM Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Luke, IANAL but AFAIK the font exception is merely a *clarification*
that
using this font in a document does not constitute a derivative work
but is
merely "use" of the font so the document itself need not be GPL-ed.
This is
however true even without the clarification being explicitly stated
and so
you can perfectly use a GPL-ed font without any problems.
IANAL either, but the law (and judge) define what is or is not a
derivative
work. Based on history, I would be surprised if they ruled it was not.
Unlike the Linux kernel clarification, the font exception is explicitly
an
*exception* and there are notable legal opinions that without this
exception,
at least embedding the font in a document is a derivative work:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#allow-embedding
However, I am satisfied that James taking this position on the mailing
list is
sufficient grounds to argue otherwise at least in this case, if it ever
became
a legal matter.
