[theme-reviewers] Font license issue

[Chip Bennett]

I use something like the following in Oenology:

Bundled Fonts

TexGyre Schola Font, Copyright 2005, 2006 C. R. Holder

   1. Source: TeXGyre Schola
Font<http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/TeX-Gyre-Schola>
   2. License: GUST Font License (GFL) (GPL-compatible)
   3. License URI:
/fonts/GUST-FONT-LICENSE.txt<http://www.themereview.chipbennett.net/wp-content/themes/oenology/fonts/GUST-FONT-LICENSE.txt>


To modify it for this use case:

Bundled Fonts

Segan Light Font, Copyright [Year] [developer]

   1. Source: http://www.dafont.com/segan.font
   2. License: "Free for personal or commercial use"
   3. License URI: http://www.dafont.com/segan.font


That's about the best that can be expected, I think.

Chip

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:01 PM, James Laws <jamielaws at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, it seems where at all possible that some sort of explanation, link or
> something should be included ti support the claim, "Free for personal or
> commercial use". Not sure really.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>
>> I would say, unless someone overrules us, that generic "Free for personal
>> or commercial use" license statements are acceptable for bundled fonts.
>>
>> My only concern regards distribution. The use-case of someone needing to
>> modify a font file is enough of an edge case that someone in such a use case
>> could be reasonably expected to contact the developer to inquire about
>> modification.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:49 PM, James Laws <jamielaws at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.dafont.com/segan.font
>>>
>>> <http://www.dafont.com/segan.font>I couldn't find much on it in a
>>> cursory Google search. There was this:
>>> http://www.maxfonts.com/fonts/s/segan.font to contact the author. But
>>> that was about it.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the font in question? Odds are, there will be a more specific
>>>> license, somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, I'm not sure, because rights of modification and
>>>> redistribution would not be made clear.
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:41 PM, James Laws <jamielaws at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll admit, I'm not great with some GPL stuff. With all these free font
>>>>> sites around what do we do with font that have no explicit license to speak
>>>>> of and simply state "free for personal and corporate use". Are these ok, and
>>>>> if so what's the stance on documentation of said non-existent license?
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20110502/66ad8c70/attachment.htm>