Fonts

[dmn_clown]

Debian-Legal seems to be taking issue with the liberation font license

http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg36584.html

On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote:
> Mmmmh, does the following "exception" constitute an additional
> restriction with respect to the GNU GPL v2?
>
> | (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the
> |     Software in a physical product must provide you the right to
> |     access and modify the source code for the Software and to
> |     reinstall that modified version of the Software in object code
> |     form on the same physical product on which you received it.
>
> If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because
> it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional
> restrictions).
>
> What do other debian-legal contributors think?

This makes it GPL incompatible, but I think it's still DFSG free.

The GPL says:

"""
  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
"""

So if you redistribute the Program, you may not impose any further
restrictions. Obviously others, like Debian, could not add additional
restrictions. However, assuming RedHat is not using parts of GPL software
in their fonts, they are free to add addition restrictions the their
originally licensed software--as they copyright holders, they can use any
license they want.

So if they say their fonts are GPL+restriction, the fonts are NOT GPL
compatible, but as long as the restriction itself is DFSG free, the work as
a whole should be fine.

The restriction they've added itself is very GPLv3-esque, so I don't see why
it wouldn't be DFSG free[1].

[1] Cue someone who will point out a billion reasons why they think similar
clauses in GPLv3 drafts aren't DFSG.

IMO - the use of the liberation fonts in anyone's textures is perfectly acceptable and not a violation, as he's just using the font and not distributing the font itself which makes our use of his textures acceptable.  Such use should also be acceptable in the missionpack as it is being used, not distributed.

[anyone]

If there's any trouble, it can be replaced in a way or another. But that GPL license is really giving me headache now. Up to which point is this font Open? They are distributing the font, but it cannot be included (redistributed) "as it" in another application or something, but the use of the font is allowed?

[dmn_clown]

Your textures that used the fonts shouldn't need to be replaced.  There is nothing in the liberation font's license that forces any work that uses it (like your textures) to be licensed with the same terms.

Exception A from the license:

(a) As a special exception, if you create a document which uses this font, and
     embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into the document, this
     font does not by itself cause the resulting document to be covered by the
     GNU General Public License.

Also, it should be noted, that debian-legal, at best, is just an advisory body the real decisions as to what is or isn't free resides in the ftp team, and I'll wager that the fonts end up in debian main.

[dmn_clown]

Well... shit: http://www.debian-multimedia.org/dists/unstable/main/binary-amd64/package/ttf-liberation.php