Re: Code2000 on SourceForge

From: James Kass <>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:41:53 -0800 (PST)

Don't worry. Taking somebody to court for using of my fonts for any purpose is something what I *strongly oppose*.
James Kass

--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Doug Ewell <> wrote:

From: Doug Ewell <>
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge
To: "Luke-Jr" <>,
Cc: "Shriramana Sharma" <>, "James Kass" <>
Date: Friday, February 3, 2012, 8:38 PM

I know this is no legal defense, but James really does not sound like he is of a mind to take people to court for using his fonts.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | @DougEwell 
-----Original Message----- From: Luke-Jr
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 12:41
Cc: Shriramana Sharma ; James Kass
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge
On Friday, February 03, 2012 1:48:56 PM Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Luke, IANAL but AFAIK the font exception is merely a *clarification* that
> using this font in a document does not constitute a derivative work but is
> merely "use" of the font so the document itself need not be GPL-ed. This is
> however true even without the clarification being explicitly stated and so
> you can perfectly use a GPL-ed font without any problems.
IANAL either, but the law (and judge) define what is or is not a derivative
work. Based on history, I would be surprised if they ruled it was not.
Unlike the Linux kernel clarification, the font exception is explicitly an
*exception* and there are notable legal opinions that without this exception,
at least embedding the font in a document is a derivative work:
However, I am satisfied that James taking this position on the mailing list is
sufficient grounds to argue otherwise at least in this case, if it ever became
a legal matter.
Received on Fri Feb 03 2012 - 14:45:03 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Feb 03 2012 - 14:45:19 CST