[Bf-committers] Blender 2.69 testbuild1 AHOY

Sergey Sharybin sergey.vfx at gmail.com
Wed Sep 25 20:58:50 CEST 2013

IRIE, please start separate thread if you're gonna to continue discussion.
However, i would recommend you discussing the issue directly with Ton.
There're no lawyers in this list who could make things clear.

Thomas, movedbuilds to the download area. Could you please mail Bart so
we've got announcement at BN?

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:36 AM, IRIE Shinsuke <irieshinsuke at yahoo.co.jp>wrote:

> I disagree with the idea that the embedded font is not a part of the
> executable code.
> The font files are converted to C programs (bfont.ttf.c and
> bmonofont.ttf.c), compiled, and merged into a single image.  Here,
> bfont.ttf.c and bmonofont.ttf.c are derivatives of the original font
> softwares and contain executable code (initialization of variables).
> Merging the fonts in this way is similar to linking to static libraries.
> Furthermore, TrueType font is not mere data, because it normally
> includes hinting programs running on interpreter in the font renderer.
> Generally, if embedded font was not considered linked to the program,
> GPLed font such as GNU FreeFont wouldn't need the font embedding
> exception.
> An installer exe is quite different from this case because the
> bundled data is used only for restoring the original files, so the
> installer and the files it installs are considered as separate works:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLCompatInstaller
> The font embedded in the blender executable is not a separate work
> and restoring the original font files is not easy.
> IRIE Shinsuke
> 13/09/25, Brecht Van Lommel wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, IRIE Shinsuke <irieshinsuke at yahoo.co.jp>
> wrote:
> >>> As for bfont, it's license is also included. However, didn't see any
> >>> requirements in cases font being bundled into executable itself.
> License
> >>> might be enough, maybe not. Anyway, it was bundled like this since
> ancient
> >>> ages and never caused issues.
> >>
> >> In cases font is bundled into executable, the font data part of the
> >> executable can be considered as a derivative of the font software,
> >> so restrictions of the font license should be inherited.
> >> GPL doesn't allow any further restrictions without additional terms.
> >
> > I don't know if this is really true. Is bundling something into the
> > same executable really the same as what the GPL calls linking, does
> > this actually make it a derivative work? If you bundle all data in a
> > single installer exe, is that also linking? The font isn't executable
> > code, it's data. So to me this doesn't obviously seem like a
> > violation.
> >
> >>> Anyway, it was bundled like this since ancient
> >>> ages and never caused issues.
> >>
> >> There has been the issue since ancient age indeed, but no one was
> >> aware of that until I pointed out.
> >>
> >> Ton, did you investigate this issue?
> >
> > Ton is on vacation at the moment, and he won't be able to reply this
> > week and the next, I don't know if he investigated this.
> >
> > As I understand it, you suspect this to be an issue, but none of us
> > are lawyers, and we don't know if this is actually an issue. If I had
> > to take I guess, I'd say it isn't.
> >
> > Brecht.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-committers mailing list
> > Bf-committers at blender.org
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

With best regards, Sergey Sharybin

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list