<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Pablo Martin-Gomez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pablo.martin-gomez@laposte.net">pablo.martin-gomez@laposte.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Le Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:47:53 -0500,<br>
Brandon Casey <<a href="mailto:drafnel@gmail.com">drafnel@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
> I am interested in embedding the Libertine font within an application<br>
> at work, so that this application can produce documents using the<br>
> Libertine font. The target systems will not have the Libertine fonts<br>
> installed. I know I can distribute the font files along side the<br>
> application, but it would be nice if that was not necessary. The<br>
> Libertine fonts are licensed as GPL with a font embedding exception.<br>
> The wording of the exception talks about embedding the fonts in a<br>
> "document". Would embedding the font within the application<br>
> (non-gpl) fall under the category of "document", or would the<br>
> compiled binary now fall under the terms of the GPL (which my<br>
> employer is not interested in)?<br>
><br>
> Any help or pointers to the appropriate source (possibly at Redhat) to<br>
> contact is appreciated.<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> -brandon<br>
<br>
</div></div>If I don't misunderstood you, you don't plan to distribute your<br>
software, just to deploy it at your work. IANAL but it's as if you<br>
modify a GPL software and don't distribute the modified software, the<br>
new binary is not under GPL, so with the "GPL contagion" it should be<br>
the same : if you don't distribute the software, no contagion.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>No, we will be distributing the software to external organizations, though not necessarily for a fee (I know fee or not, doesn't really matter). By saying "an application at work", I just meant that it is not my personal project that I have 100% control over, but I can see how that could have been confusing.<br>
</div></div><br>Thanks,<br>-brandon<br><br>