On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:35:27 +0200, Andrew 'ashridah' Pilley
> Wait, aren't the fonts processed as data in rockbox, not linked in as
> object files? Given the degree of separation between them, I'd say there
> wouldn't be a problem from the GPL side. The GPL is quite explicit about
> data not being subject to the license of GPL'ed code, after all. About
> all I could suggest is it'd be a problem if it was the built-in default
> rockbox font that's built into the source code.
That is true. But right now it is: firmware+codecs+plugins+fonts = rockbox
= gpl. If this font is going to be included, it has to become: rockbox =
gpl, except for fonts blah and blah, those are BSD.
> If it's the BSD+advertising clause license on the font that's the issue
> here, then just acknowledging it won't affect the fact that the source
> code is GPL'ed, either, does it?
> Now, if you object to having to advertise it, you wouldn't be suggesting
> a separate distribution of the font anyway, so why can't you distribute
> the font, and acknowledge it appropriately?
According to the website I linked in an earlier mail, the GPL states that
a file distributed under GPL can only be GPL-only. No modifications
allowed. So you can put it on your website, put the advertising clause in,
but can't force others to do the same, if released under GPL. That's the
Man, I should print the GPL once and read fully through it back and
forth... never done that.
ASCII ribbon campaign ( )
- against HTML email X
& .doc attachments / \
Received on Fri Aug 5 14:36:47 2005