> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM, <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Well none of us are lawyers here, and you should not rely on anything >> written on a public mailing list when there is a risk of a trial. And >> when >> the wording of a license is unclear, there is definitely one. >> >> If I had to embed a font in an application I certainly wouldn't start >> with >> a GPL font but look at Droid or another font with lax licensing (though >> the licensing would need to be double-checked too). >> > > I thought about Droid, but it talks about using OpenType features and I > was planning on using freetype. So, I'm open to using Droid, with its OFL > license, but I'm not sure if it would render correctly using just > freetype. Any half-decent font will use opentype features nowadays, and you will need a shaper (like pango-cairo) to render it correctly, freetype won't be enough. That's the case for Droid, DejaVu, Libertine, Liberation, etc Also Droid is not OFL, it uses the Apache 2 license >> That, or ask the author of the font I selected for an explicit >> authorization. >> > > That's kind of what led me here. AFAIK Redhat is the license holder for > the font. You're confusing Libertine with Liberation. Those are two different fonts, with different upstreams, and different licensing > I don't know who to contact at Redhat about this question. For legal queries in a community/Fedora context, you need to ask Tom Callaway who will relay wherever is appropriate -- Nicolas Mailhot _______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
