lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond Feta font license


From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling
Subject: Re: Lilypond Feta font license
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:29:21 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1

On 10/18/2012 09:38 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
The idea behind this is twofold: first, the GPL does not make sense
for a font.

That's not entirely true. Obviously it's not a good condition for use of a font in a document, and you _can't_ copyright the _appearance_ of the font, but it makes sense for GPL to be applied to the underlying "code" of a font so long as you have an exception in place that permits embedding in a document -- see:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis

Second, the font can be used independently of LilyPond,
and thus it is in a sense a standalone work, the use of which does not
create a derivative work.

Yea, this seems a broadly correct assertion with respect to fonts although the precise interpretation might differ depending on whether (and how) you bundle the font together with other software.

On a related note, this raises the issue of how Lilypond itself bundles the fonts -- as an internal part of Lilypond, or to install as a system font? See:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lilypond/+bug/174369

AFAICS this latter issue is why e.g. if you open up a Lilypond-generated SVG, PS, etc. in Inkscape, all the Feta font characters display as gobbledegook.

Although, this project in particular is not GPLd, questions about
using Feta have popped up from time to time before from others, and
the OFL is a way to answer all these questions in one fell swoop.

Even with just GPL+exception (the embedding exception is important; is it in place for Feta?), it's most likely possible for a non-GPL, even proprietary, application to use the Feta font, and even distribute it as part of a collection of software, so long as the font is included as a standalone element and not integrated into the code in other ways. It may be worth touching base with FSF and related bodies on this.

But (GPL+exception)+OPF is a fairly standard way to licence a font and does remove uncertainties on the part of other software developers.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]