Question about GPL v3 font

[Jonathan Gray]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 07:45:49PM +1300, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> 
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 21:51, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Tom,
> >
> > In message <20190726170700.GQ20116 at bill-the-cat> you wrote:
> > >
> > > >           It was designed in 1987. A subset of Nimbus Sans L were released
> > > >           under the GPL. Although the characters are not exactly the same,
> > > >           Nimbus Sans L has metrics almost identical to Helvetica and Ari=
> > > al.
> > > >           (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> > > >           From: https://fontlibrary.org/en/font/nimbus-sans-l
> > > >           License: GNU GPL v3
> > > >           http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> > >
> > > It's a good question.  I suspect the answer is that we should drop that
> > > font as I don't know if you can combine "GPLv2 only" and "GPLv2 or
> > > later" with "GPLv3".
> >
> > Should we not first make sure the license is really GPLv3?
> >
> > At the moment the URL https://fontlibrary.org/en/font/nimbus-sans-l
> > does not work.  But there are other sources which suggest that this
> > font might actually be GPLv2 instead, see for example "Licensing" at
> > https://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/nimbus-sans-l
> >
> > Or see https://www.1001fonts.com/nimbus-sans-l-font.html
> 
> Yes I see that now. I am not actually sure of the license but it is
> certainly possible it could be GPLv2. Is there a way to find the
> authoritative source?
> 
> I will send a patch to replace this with roboto, which seems to be
> clearly licensed.

Roboto is licensed under Apache 2.0

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2
"Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2"