From: Andrew 'ashridah' Pilley <ashridah_at_netspace.net.au>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:35:27 +1000

On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 15:27 -0700, Dave Wiard wrote:
> Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Frederic Devernay wrote:
> >
> >> It's BSD-like license (do whatever you want with it, provided you keep
> >> the copyright information with the fonts). Is the BSD license
> >> GPL-compatible?
> >
> > The Modified BSD one is, the Original BSD one isn't.
>
> As I read all the licenses around this Lucida font we cannot distribute
> it with Rockbox but we could provide it separately as a package unto
> itself. Since Rockbox is released under GPL, the Lucida license is not
> compatible the two have to be distributed separately. Possibly, this is
> as easy as putting Lucida on the wiki page but seeing that it never gets
> into the CVS tree. Better yet, point people to a URL where they can get
> this font themselves and don't get near it with Rockbox...

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.

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?

Andrew


>
> Dave
> _______________________________________________
> http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
>

_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
Received on 2005-08-05