Is there a meaningful difference in the two licenses for fonts? LGPL is necessary for code, which gets loaded at runtime to a closed-source executable, but fonts contain no code, and thus aren't loaded.
A good point, but I'm not qualified to answer that. I suspect that the SFC would be able to answer it, if it's a serious consideration.
FWIW, a couple links: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts
and the actual license: http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=liberation-fonts.git;a=blob_plain;f=sourc...
The actual license contains the font exception. IANAL, but that would appear to resolve any transitive license problem that might otherwise arise from including Liberation fonts. --Juan