Re: Code2000 on SourceForge

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 <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote:

From: Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org>
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge
To: "Luke-Jr" <luke_at_dashjr.org>, unicode_at_unicode.org
Cc: "Shriramana Sharma" <samjnaa_at_gmail.com>, "James Kass" <jameskass_at_att.net>
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: 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.