Re: Code2000 on SourceForge

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: unicode_at_unicode.org
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.