Don't worry. Taking somebody to court for using of my fonts for any purpose is something what I *strongly oppose*. James Kass
--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote: From: Doug Ewell <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge To: "Luke-Jr" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Cc: "Shriramana Sharma" <[email protected]>, "James Kass" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 3, 2012, 8:38 PM 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.
