dev builds
themes manual
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
dev guide

Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: How to easily get fonts

Re: How to easily get fonts

From: BlueChip <>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:20:11 +0100

When I ran into GPL problems I procured appropriate research into the
subject and came up trumps. Virtually every project which claims to be GPL
are not, as they do not conform the the stringent guidelines laid down by
the agreement on the part of the author. I would think with such an
infamous font you would probably be unlucky - but it might be worth
checking that the author(s) of the font have conformed to all the
requirements laid down by the agreement they claim to be bound to. If they
have slipped up anywhere, they you have a "legal loophole" through which
you can slip - and not have to come up with some clever lateral solution to
cirucmvent the intention of the agreement :)



At 00:35 05/08/2005, you wrote:
>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?
> >
> > Dave
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >

Received on 2005-08-05

Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy