[Bf-committers] Blender 2.69 testbuild1 AHOY
irieshinsuke at yahoo.co.jp
Wed Sep 25 21:36:58 CEST 2013
Ah, sorry. Will contact to Ton later. He said "I will put it on my
agenda for August to investigate." when I reported this issue first.
Anyway, I corrected the installation of LICENSE-bmonofont-i18n.ttf.txt.
P.S. "IRIE" is the last name :)
13/09/26, Sergey Sharybin wrote:
> 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
>> 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:
>> 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>
>>>>> As for bfont, it's license is also included. However, didn't see any
>>>>> requirements in cases font being bundled into executable itself.
>>>>> might be enough, maybe not. Anyway, it was bundled like this since
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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.
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers