[Scribus] font management

[Marvin Dickens]

On Sunday 17 April 2005 03:11 pm, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 14:53 -0400, Louis Desjardins wrote:
> > If there will be an advice, I think it should be made clear to which
> > font family it applies. Otherwise it's going to be really complicated
> > for everyone to find out when GPL applies to a font.
>
> Agreed. I've added a reference to the GPL FAQ entry to the UnFonts
> listing on the wiki font page. There aren't any others listed there that
> I know are GPL. It's definitely something to watch out for though.
>
> > I think it's
> > only confusing and it should be clarified by the people responsible
> > for the GPL. At the same time, are there lots of fonts known to be
> > released under the GPL? In other words, is it a theoretical issue or
> > a real-life issue?
>
> At least UnFonts, and I think I've seen others.
>
> > Like I said, it needs clarification.
>
> The problem is that the FSF can't just "fix" the GPL. For one thing,
> adding explicit clauses for various applications would be the road to
> madness - where do you stop? There's also the issue that while some font
> authors may not have known about this restriction, others may have - and
> the FSF would be justifiably unwilling to wipe out their licensing
> intent with a revision of the license.
>
> On the flip side, I rather doubt even the FSF are willing to explicitly
> "clarify" that "all your documents are belong to us." (sorry!). Thus we
> find ourselves the present situation, which as alluded to by Marvin may
> well be an intentional lack of clarity.

The purpose of a license is define the terms of use. Further, a well written 
license clearly details the  terms of use without having "grey" areas which 
could have dual (Or more) interpetation. The GPL falls into the category of a 
well written license. Recent court challenges prove it.

My point is that the GPL clearly defines terms of use. GPL'ed fonts
and their terms of use is perceived as a grey area by users. The FSF and
the writers of the GPL have been constantly asked, for over a decade to
clarify the the terms of use of GPL'ed fonts and they have not once issued
a written statement other than ones that refers back to the GPL or the
"experimental" addendum at the FSF. Also, FWIW, the "experimental" 
addendum is literally buried deep in the fsf.org site and not easily found
(In fact, it's easier to find using google than navigating the fsf.org site). 
There was never a written statement announcing the availability of the 
"experimental" addendum (Like the written statements that they issue 
for every other addendum to the GPL they have released). They have issued 
literally hundreds of written statements regarding just about every other 
nuance regarding terms of use of GPL'ed software. Why is this a consistant
over site? - As a user and supporter of free software, I'd really like know. 

Regards

Marvin