[Scribus] Re: GPLed fonts

[Gregory Pittman]

Marvin Dickens wrote:

>
>That correct if a GPL font is involved. In the case of graphics, unless a font 
>is involved, the image is a private work (That is, if it's not derived from a 
>GPL'ed graphic image).
>
>People need to understand the implications of the licenses that govern the 
>software they chose to use.
>  
>
A lot of this is quite absurd.  I think the only question about the use 
of a GPL'd font has to do with the software that uses that font 
software, e.g., Scribus.  I have no doubt that a very clear legal 
distinction can be made between the software that renders a document and 
the creative aspect of the document -- its design, layout, the verbal 
content of the text that may have been rendered in one kind of font or 
another.  What you in a way are trying to suggest is that the GPL has 
extended itself to the letters of the alphabet -- I really don't think 
that anyone gets the rights to the alphabet.

All of the nail-biting going on is very much in line with the kind of 
FUD that Microsoft likes to stir up when it talks about how bad 
non-proprietary licenses are.  What really gripes Microsoft is that the 
old days of simply stealing bits and chunks of others' code and then 
copyrighting it doesn't seem so easy anymore.

One of the things that Microsoft and others especially enjoy about this 
kind of FUD is that they also know it is unlikely to ever be resolved.  
This is not likely to see the light of day in a courtroom -- who would 
spend money to bring such a suit?  What would they expect to gain from 
it?  There may be a day in court for the GPL, but it certainly won't be 
about GPL'd fonts.

Greg