GPL fonts a bad idea?

[TravisNewman]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/17/2118203

Now this is interesting. GPL fonts in a document make the document subject to the GPL. Your thoughts?

[Ironi]

I'd prefer not to think about it, personally. If I try to come up with an opinion on the whole situation, I'll probably end up with a headache. :p

[TravisNewman]

I'd prefer not to think about it, personally. If I try to come up with an opinion on the whole situation, I'll probably end up with a headache. :p
*LOL* yeah I hear ya

[paul cooke]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/17/2118203

Now this is interesting. GPL fonts in a document make the document subject to the GPL. Your thoughts?

pure unaldulterated FUD, and slashdot should know better...

a printed document is not a derived work. It is program output and is not as such subject to the GPL.

A scribus document that uses a GPL'd font also doesn't become GPL'd... all you have to do to remain in compliance with the licence for the font is to provide a copy of the font on request.

I suspect this is from the same team of fudsters who the other week were trying it on with Google's use of GPL'd software and claiming that Google's internal code was being distributed because the output was going via the web to the recipient... and that therefore, Google, and by extension, other companies that used GPL'd code for webservers would have to make their custom internal PHP code available because they were using it to serve web pages.

[TravisNewman]

The legalities are fishy-- I do hope you're right paul

[wulf]

I agree that it's FUD - it's like saying I shouldn't be running Linux on my main box at work because it's got a sticker on the side saying "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP"!

Wulf

[TravisNewman]

*L* Nice analogy!

[az]

Although I would not call it FUD, because that is never really an argument, I would quote Colonel Potter:

"Horse Hockey!"

[TravisNewman]

Good call! I'm starting to get to the point where I develop a twitch whenever I see the word FUD ;)

[bigzak]

Now this is interesting. GPL fonts in a document make the document subject to the GPL. Your thoughts?

It's complete rubbish. The point is not that using fonts in your document will make the document fall under the GPL, but actually embedding the byte code into the document (as in PDF or similar) would cause the document to contain GPL code (the font itself) and therefore be subject to the GPL.

To me it just sounds like some FUD mixed with a sub-conscious need to scupper mass acceptance of open source to preserve the minority niche that many have become comfortable with. Or maybe I'm just looking too deep ;)

[Stormy Eyes]

Now this is interesting. GPL fonts in a document make the document subject to the GPL. Your thoughts?

What was the submitter smoking, and where can I get some? Claiming that having GPL fonts in a document makes as much sense as Apple demanding a cut of Stephen King's royalties every time he writes a novel on a Mac.

[wmcbrine]

So I guess we just need to switch the fonts to LGPL to solve the "problem". :razz:

[skoal]

GPL'd fonts? Anyone ever stop to think this GPL copyright stuff is going a tad bit overboard? Something's amiss here.

Everything from crappy freshmeat themes using some stenciled texture wallpaper dated to Gnome v0.1 to a simple Gimp wallpaper are GPL'd now. Am I the only one scratching their chin here, saying "WTFrijole?".

What ever happened to posting stuff on the net just because you want to share? That's the way we did it back in the '80's on BBS(s) - everything from art to even source. Fair use under American copyright law says we can use Microsoft/Apple TTF fonts without permission (within guidelines).I don't recall this ever being an issue to them. Why is this just the opposite when recklessly applying a GPL? Talk about irony. Weird. That's all I can say. Just Weird.

[poofyhairguy]

Man, what a bad headline.

[TravisNewman]

*L* good point

[wmcbrine]

GPL'd fonts? Anyone ever stop to think this GPL copyright stuff is going a tad bit overboard?
Nope.


What ever happened to posting stuff on the net just because you want to share?
Nothing. That's what people are doing.

If you're suggesting putting stuff in the public domain, that's fine -- if you don't mind some company ripping off your work and not giving anything back. Preferably, use the BSD license -- they'll still rip you off, but at least you'll get credit. :) But if you want to make something free, and make it stay free, you use the GPL.

There's also the question of whether dedication to the public domain is even legally possible anymore. I found the idea shocking, but a while back, someone made the case to me that it wasn't, and provided some compelling citations. I'm not quite convinced, but I was disturbed enough to avoid using "Placed in the Public Domain" notices from here on. (Another point for the BSD license.)

If you're saying to just ignore the issue of copyright, that's fine too -- but it puts limits on what you can do, and in the long run it could get you in trouble. With no copyright notice, public domain used to be the default status; but nowadays, the law says that everything you write is automatically copyrighted, whether you attach a notice or not. So if you post something with no license, then the only thing that allows anyone to do anything with the material is fair use doctrine... which is vaguely defined at best.


That's the way we did it back in the '80's on BBS(s) - everything from art to even source.
The differences between now and then are:

1. There's more awareness of the issues now -- but they were always there.

2. There are more vultures now. When I mention companies ripping you off, I'm not speaking theoretically. That was less common in the world of BBSes, because it was a smaller, more fringe community with less commercial involvement.


Fair use under American copyright law says we can use Microsoft/Apple TTF fonts without permission (within guidelines). I don't recall this ever being an issue to them. Why is this just the opposite when recklessly applying a GPL?
There is of course no difference. A font is a font. The article is basically a troll.