Slashdot Mirror
Unintended Consequences of Using GPL Fonts
innocent_white_lamb writes "An interesting discussion has surfaced on the Scribus mailing list. Simply stated, it appears that using GPL-licensed fonts in a document makes your document subject to the GPL. There are a lot of consequences here, such as internal corporate communications. It appears to make the use of GPL fonts undesirable in almost any document." Yes, it sounds crazy, but the experimental font-exception addition to the GPL (linked from the discussion) lends the idea some credence.
What did you expect?
If this isnt an prime example right in your face, i dont know what is.
BSD type licensing is free, and isnt viral..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You just proved my point that BSD is more free.
.. are all of you this dense not to see it? Im not saying you cant choose under which license you want to be *controlled* by, only that you see it for what it is.
I dont about your statement about the original intent when the BSD license was created. Unless you were there, and want to contradict its framers then you are wrong. They knew what they were doing, and the intent was pretty clear. It still is.
In general, my statements are all about relative amounts of freedom that are at issue with these licenses. In a relative sense, i am correct.
You may choose to hide your head in the sand even when presented with a prime example as the story topic but that doesnt make the reality of the GPL being *less free* and *viral at its core* go away.
Even the idiot who created the GPL *intended* it to be viral.. look at his reasonings for how its written.. It MEANT it to be viral so that everything 'must be free' and remove rights from the users of the code.. He didnt want one to have the rights to choose, as is with other licenses.
Geesh
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is true... people throw the term FUD around way too much.
I am sorry, but all this sounds utterly stupid. And if your document becomes GPL, so what? All people you give it to must have access to... the source code? But you're distributing them the doc, which is its own source code...
I don't see anything worth any trouble here...
Write boring code, not shiny code!
What problem? Stallman designed the GPL this way. Those font authors applied the GPL to their work on purpose. Their is no problem. These are not unintended consequences. This is what viruses do. You just have to wonder about the common sense applied by the people who downloaded fonts infected with a viral license and didn't think it would be an issue. Idiots.
Buy fonts and you don't have a problem, do you? But download them, for free, and you get the virus.
Just goes to show, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Agreed there. It is in this case that people really really need to be reminded that the GPL is a virus. You download GPL property and you download the virus. This is one "unintended" consequence of that virus. Who knows what others may come up?
We should not release code under the GPL, and no-one should touch GPL code unless they are basically going to be happy giving all their work to the FSF when they're done.
German voter, 1936:
"Can you honestly see Hitler invading Poland?"
The point is, you don't give those people the opportunity. The FSF is all about distrust of commercial organizations, but the entire edifice rests on you trusting the FSF and the authors of the GPL code to "be reasonable". Well, sorry, but those guys have not proven themselves to be reasonable people. If Stallman was a reasonable person the FSF wouldn't even exist.
Notwithstanding the IANAL analysis of what "would" happen if this ever reached court.