Antworten an drak, Seite 87

grmpyoldman drak

@drak so wie der typ auch aussieht, vertraue ich dem sowieso nicht ;)

mk drak

@drak for a font you need to state that, or at least embed that information in the font

mk drak

@drak :-D

mcscx drak , luke

@drak ACK. ATM @glynmoody uses Twitter as his main acct & crossposts to identica. All URLs in his identica notes appear as t.co/... @luke

andstatus drak

@drak Thanks, got it. I already saw people complaining current "project page" appears to be "github" :-)

mk drak

@drak hmm, that's a bit odd :)

mk drak

@drak I thought the whole 'SA' bit is for if you do make changes (and distribute those) - which would logically require 'sources' to do that

mk drak

@drak yes, technically - I agbree. but I'm thinking "logically" combining licenses based on the same types of ideas about sharing, modifying and (re)distribution

mk drak

@drak I agree with that, too. They're clearly out of their depth regarding "creative works" and their possible roles and uses, and only mention it here and there as an afterthought (and - in the case of fonts - not even understanding what the SIL license actually requires, let alone why).

mk drak

@drak ...and that's why you *always* must add the Font Exception (FE) to a GPL'd font if you want to allow embedding. That is really, because a font shoudl always declare whether or not embedding is allowed (or only under specific conditions): in a well-designed font this information is actually embedded.

mk drak , sazius

@sazius @drak what _is_ interesting is that it explicitly mentions CC BY-SA as a copyleft license (just like SIL's OFL is also copyleft and not incompatible). I am sticking with my conclusion that bundling a CC BY-SA or SIL font (with or without extra CC BY-SA for contained icons) with a GPL-licensed set of programs ("theme") is perfectly OK.

mk drak , sazius

@sazius I actually think the FSF does not even *understand* 'creative works' or fonts - their suggestion that the SIL OFL requires bundling of a program is totally off, it does no such thing! They apparently do not understand that *building* a font requires combining "software" and "designs", without the software part there is not font. /cc @drak

mk drak , mk

@mk @drak More interesting is that the whole document "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.htmls ONLY lists "fonts" besides "Software and Documentation" - I've still not been able to find *anything* about bundling image files (icons or photos) with programs/themes/etc under GPL (and I've been at it pretty much all day...)

mk drak

@drak The only place I've found where FSF says something reasonably clear about GPL and fonts is here: Licenses for Fonts http://oracle.skilledtests.com/url/16582 - note that 1) to allow a GPL-ed font to be embedded if the embedding document is not GPL, you *must* add the "Font Exception" (in fact a nice illustration of my statement that GPL was not desigend to be used *for* fonts!); and 2) it does NOT say that SIL Open Font License is INcompatible with GPL (while it does say that of Arphic). My (personal) conclusion is that it is perfectly OK to bundle a SIL-licensed font with a GPL-licensed program (theme or otherwise).

mk drak

@drak Of course - that's effectively what I've been saying all along, and applies to 'bundling' a font (and equally image files!) bundled with a program in a theme (or "template").

mk drak

@drak there are reasons why there are separate types of license for softwware, for media (visual, auditory, multimedia) and fonts: they are quite different types of product a and each need things to be defined that do not apply to other types.

mk drak

@drak simply put, because a photograph is not a 'program' ALL of teh wording of GPL essentially applies to programs (and only partially to scripts as 'interpreted' software), and has none of the language needed for licencing images. You can do it, but it leaves many open questions and is thus not an appropriate licensing model

mk drak

@drak Yes, but that exception applies ONLY to GPL-released fonts when used embedded in a document.It does NOT apply to fonts under whjatever license that are buindled with aGPL program

mk drak , mk

@mk @drak The same would obviously apply to an icon font as well, which may have a single license, or a conbination of licenses for the font (software) and icons (design); but like bundled images in a theme, a font is replaceable and should be covered under its own separate license(s)

mk drak

@drak Yes, I looked at that, but even that description does not specifically cover images (like icon files) or photographs, which may be "bundled" with a theme covered by GPL. Those images *cannot* be licensed with GPL, so they shoudl be considered separate works, which should be covered under their own license.