Re: Font license recommendation
On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 17:47, Lars Hellström wrote: > Whereas this in principle could affect the inclusion-of-font-in-PS matter, > I doubt that it will in practice. It does however seem to me that this > aspect has a direct application to another matter, namely that of tarballs. > Jeff claimed in our discussion regarding the LPPL that, as I understood it > a general principle, tarballs automatically become derived works of > whatever is stored in them and that any license conditions for derived > works would automatically attach themselves to the tarball. (In particular: > if some file in the tarball has a "rename before modify" condition then > that would apply to the tarball as a whole and thus, I suspect, the tarball > would have to be renamed whenever anything was added to or removed from > it.) The above principle of intent seems, at least to me, to void that > argument. As long as there is no intent to use the tarball in any but the > normal ways then the conditions concerning derived works do not attach to > it. Instead the conditions attached to the tarball (at least this is what I > would expect as default conditions, if nothing else is said) should be that > whatever is produced by extracting the contents of the tarball in the most > common way satisfies the conditions for the files that have been put into > the tarball. The problem is that the intent of the licensor is not made clear in the license. The GPL makes several statements of intent in the license itself, and grants exceptions for derived works that are "mere aggregations", for example. The LPPL does no such thing. Also, if you don't assume that the tarball is distributed under the LPPL, then under what license is it distributed under? Remember that you need a license to distribute any derived work.
Re: Font license recommendation
On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 14:30, Lars Hellström wrote: > On 04 Aug 2002 20:22:11 -0500, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 17:53, Lars Hellström wrote: > >> "FUD" ? > >> > >> On what do you base your opinion that intent has any significance for > >> whether the GPL allows an action? > > > >Well, there's this: > > > >"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > >making modifications to it." (section 3) > > > >"Preferred" is an intent, last time I checked. > > Intent. A purpose or aim; meaning; import. Syn.: Design, purpose, > intention, drift, significance, view, aim. > > Prefer. To regard or esteem more than something else; to place in a > higher rank or position; to give priority to; to seek recompense. > > In a broad sense of intent perhaps, but I got clear impression Thomas had > something much more concrete and close in mind. Maybe, maybe not. > >It's used against people > >who use obfuscators on their source before distribution, for example, > >because no one in their right mind would intend to edit the obfuscated > >source to add features or fix bugs. > > True, and as I mentioned (see below) there is a lot in the license about > the intent of the license, but the question was rather about whether the > intent of the person who performs an action has any significance for the > GPL allowing that. If you insist on that intent matters, then you have to > explain why it could be OK to link GPL-compatible and GPL-incompatible code > into one program when > (i) the person doing it wants X, but not when he wants Y; or > (ii) the program does X, but not when it does Y. Last time I checked, licenses don't have the power to "prefer" anything, to modify code, or to run obfuscators. "Intent" is a trait held by people; the fact that we use handy linguistic shortcuts does not any more give licenses an "intent" than it gives seafaring vessels sexual characteristics by being called "she". Licenses are statements of intent by the licensor; they have no intent of their own. It's always OK to link GPL-compatible and GPL-incompatible code, no matter what the intent of either the licensor or the licensee. But if the person doing the linking distributes the result, that's not OK. Again, the intent of either party is not at issue. The question is whether the license on some bit of code is incompatible with the GPL, and to answer that question, intent has to be taken into account. > >There's also this: > > > >"The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from > >the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on > >the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). > >Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." > > > >"What the Program does" is also intent. > > > >Incidentally, the latter paragraph also provides reason to believe that > >a PostScript file generated using a GPL font does not become "tainted" > >with the source requirements of the GPL. (No, it's not clear-cut; I'm > >not necessarily arguing that it's the case, just that it's possible.) > > But the PS file is no more output from the font than a binary executable is > output from an object code file which was linked into it. The font is not > "run" until the document is rendered. I'm assuming that the font is rendered into bitmaps. This wasn't clear, I'm afraid. > _Maybe_ you could make an argument > that distilling a PS file is running it and that fonts in the PDF are > output of the fonts in the PS, but that is shaky too. In particular, the > procedures for actually drawing the glyphs (which are what commercial > copyright holders are most keen on protecting) are generally left unchanged. Compilers generally don't change during the compile process, either. Does that change the fact that the object files they product are "output of the Program" in the GPL sense? > >> It clearly says > >> > >> You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program > >> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt > >> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is > >> void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. > >> > >> and I don't see any reference in it to the intent of the licensee (only to > >> the intent of the license, but that is something quite different). > > > >That's because intent is a subject of other parts of the license. > > Both "it"s refer to the license as a whole. ...which expressly refer to the intent of various parties. > >> Furthermore I don't see that there would necessarily be any difference in > >> intent. Certainly if one writes a program whose only purpose is to > >> demonstrate a legal loophole there would be a difference in intent, but > >> that isn't the interesting case. In the interesting case the intent is to > >> "make a single file program, incorporating various pieces of free software > >> (some of which are
Re: Font license recommendation
On 08 Aug 2002 15:37:29 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: >Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> In a broad sense of intent perhaps, but I got clear impression Thomas had >> something much more concrete and close in mind. > >The GPL applies to anything that counts as a derivative work, with >some explicit exceptions (mere aggregation, for example). > >The copyright law itself (as nearly every law) considers intent to be >of cardinal importance when considering cases of contributory >infringment, and since the GPL reaches just as far as copyright, >intent therefore matters in deciding where the GPL's conditions attach. OK, this makes sense. It was something more concrete, but working at a different level. Whereas this in principle could affect the inclusion-of-font-in-PS matter, I doubt that it will in practice. It does however seem to me that this aspect has a direct application to another matter, namely that of tarballs. Jeff claimed in our discussion regarding the LPPL that, as I understood it a general principle, tarballs automatically become derived works of whatever is stored in them and that any license conditions for derived works would automatically attach themselves to the tarball. (In particular: if some file in the tarball has a "rename before modify" condition then that would apply to the tarball as a whole and thus, I suspect, the tarball would have to be renamed whenever anything was added to or removed from it.) The above principle of intent seems, at least to me, to void that argument. As long as there is no intent to use the tarball in any but the normal ways then the conditions concerning derived works do not attach to it. Instead the conditions attached to the tarball (at least this is what I would expect as default conditions, if nothing else is said) should be that whatever is produced by extracting the contents of the tarball in the most common way satisfies the conditions for the files that have been put into the tarball. Lars Hellström
Re: Font license recommendation
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In a broad sense of intent perhaps, but I got clear impression Thomas had > something much more concrete and close in mind. The GPL applies to anything that counts as a derivative work, with some explicit exceptions (mere aggregation, for example). The copyright law itself (as nearly every law) considers intent to be of cardinal importance when considering cases of contributory infringment, and since the GPL reaches just as far as copyright, intent therefore matters in deciding where the GPL's conditions attach. Thomas
Re: Font license recommendation
On 04 Aug 2002 20:22:11 -0500, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 17:53, Lars Hellström wrote: >> At 00.53 +0200 2002-08-03, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >> >Since things like intention matter--and not just technical >> >mechanism--this is just FUD. >> >> "FUD" ? >> >> On what do you base your opinion that intent has any significance for >> whether the GPL allows an action? > >Well, there's this: > >"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for >making modifications to it." (section 3) > >"Preferred" is an intent, last time I checked. Intent. A purpose or aim; meaning; import. Syn.: Design, purpose, intention, drift, significance, view, aim. Prefer. To regard or esteem more than something else; to place in a higher rank or position; to give priority to; to seek recompense. In a broad sense of intent perhaps, but I got clear impression Thomas had something much more concrete and close in mind. >It's used against people >who use obfuscators on their source before distribution, for example, >because no one in their right mind would intend to edit the obfuscated >source to add features or fix bugs. True, and as I mentioned (see below) there is a lot in the license about the intent of the license, but the question was rather about whether the intent of the person who performs an action has any significance for the GPL allowing that. If you insist on that intent matters, then you have to explain why it could be OK to link GPL-compatible and GPL-incompatible code into one program when (i) the person doing it wants X, but not when he wants Y; or (ii) the program does X, but not when it does Y. >There's also this: > >"The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from >the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on >the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). >Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." > >"What the Program does" is also intent. > >Incidentally, the latter paragraph also provides reason to believe that >a PostScript file generated using a GPL font does not become "tainted" >with the source requirements of the GPL. (No, it's not clear-cut; I'm >not necessarily arguing that it's the case, just that it's possible.) But the PS file is no more output from the font than a binary executable is output from an object code file which was linked into it. The font is not "run" until the document is rendered. _Maybe_ you could make an argument that distilling a PS file is running it and that fonts in the PDF are output of the fonts in the PS, but that is shaky too. In particular, the procedures for actually drawing the glyphs (which are what commercial copyright holders are most keen on protecting) are generally left unchanged. >> It clearly says >> >> You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program >> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt >> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is >> void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. >> >> and I don't see any reference in it to the intent of the licensee (only to >> the intent of the license, but that is something quite different). > >That's because intent is a subject of other parts of the license. Both "it"s refer to the license as a whole. >> Furthermore I don't see that there would necessarily be any difference in >> intent. Certainly if one writes a program whose only purpose is to >> demonstrate a legal loophole there would be a difference in intent, but >> that isn't the interesting case. In the interesting case the intent is to >> "make a single file program, incorporating various pieces of free software >> (some of which are GPL and some of which are GPL-incompatible), that does >> X". The "X" could be to display a certain picture; PS files can have this >> intent, but there are also C programs with the same intent. > >Well, let's take the Gimp. It processes one image file into another, >and is GPLed. Does that have any implication on the legal status of >either image? What if the original is GPLed? Especially given that >most image formats are their own preferred format for modification, >things are not so clear as they might seem. Gimp requires very precise input to produces the picture, which is why the GPL paragraph you quoted above is applicable; the output is not a work based on Gimp. Likewise, when I use a postscript printer driver, I don't claim that the PS file it produces is a work based on the driver. >One could make the case that a font is an interpreted language, with the >font renderer as the interpreter. _Postscript_ is very much an interpreted language, PS fonts are code libraries (with exception for pure bitmap fonts, which are rather data, but those are rare these days), and GhostScript is an example of an interpreter for that language. >In that case, a rendered glyph could >be conside
Re: Font license recommendation
On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 17:53, Lars Hellström wrote: > At 00.53 +0200 2002-08-03, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > >Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> I doubt this argument could work. However if it did then it certainly would > >> provide a technical solution to the (obnoxious?) GPL incompatibility > >> problem: just design the linker so that it pads the executable with markup > >> saying "beginning/end of material that is part of the work XXX", and then > >> claim the file is an aggrevation of different works, which just happens to > >> be interpreted as an executable program by the OS. > > > >Since things like intention matter--and not just technical > >mechanism--this is just FUD. > > "FUD" ? > > On what do you base your opinion that intent has any significance for > whether the GPL allows an action? Well, there's this: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." (section 3) "Preferred" is an intent, last time I checked. It's used against people who use obfuscators on their source before distribution, for example, because no one in their right mind would intend to edit the obfuscated source to add features or fix bugs. There's also this: "The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." "What the Program does" is also intent. Incidentally, the latter paragraph also provides reason to believe that a PostScript file generated using a GPL font does not become "tainted" with the source requirements of the GPL. (No, it's not clear-cut; I'm not necessarily arguing that it's the case, just that it's possible.) > It clearly says > > You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program > except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt > otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is > void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. > > and I don't see any reference in it to the intent of the licensee (only to > the intent of the license, but that is something quite different). That's because intent is a subject of other parts of the license. > Furthermore I don't see that there would necessarily be any difference in > intent. Certainly if one writes a program whose only purpose is to > demonstrate a legal loophole there would be a difference in intent, but > that isn't the interesting case. In the interesting case the intent is to > "make a single file program, incorporating various pieces of free software > (some of which are GPL and some of which are GPL-incompatible), that does > X". The "X" could be to display a certain picture; PS files can have this > intent, but there are also C programs with the same intent. Well, let's take the Gimp. It processes one image file into another, and is GPLed. Does that have any implication on the legal status of either image? What if the original is GPLed? Especially given that most image formats are their own preferred format for modification, things are not so clear as they might seem. One could make the case that a font is an interpreted language, with the font renderer as the interpreter. In that case, a rendered glyph could be considered "output from the Program". OTOH, the font could be considered data that is input by a font renderer; in that case, the rendered glyphs could be considered "derived works". Then again, if you're using the Gimp to create a PNG with text rendered in a GPLed font, it wouldn't matter; the PNG file is its own "preferred format". But an EPS or SVG might, especially if the font is required to process the file properly. Indeed, a vector image file format could itself be described as a program; PostScript is even considered Turing complete, if my memory serves me. But what if you convert a PNG to an EPS, and add some text with a GPLed font? What constitutes "the source"? If the PNG is proprietary, have you just violated the GPL? The details of embedding could even make a difference. One could embed bitmaps generated by the font instead of the font itself, which would clearly be "output from the Program". Bitmap fonts would themselves be in the "preferred form", so their licensing status might not matter; at that point, what would it matter if the fonts were embedded in another file? In short, I don't think the question is as simple as you make it. > And just to make sure we're clear on what my point is: Incorporating a > GPLed font in a PS document does, in contrast to what you claimed, have (in > many cases) unwanted legal implications; if it didn't then there would be a > simple workaround for GPL-incompatibility. That's entirely possible, but I remain unconvinced.
Re: Font license recommendation
At 00.53 +0200 2002-08-03, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I doubt this argument could work. However if it did then it certainly would >> provide a technical solution to the (obnoxious?) GPL incompatibility >> problem: just design the linker so that it pads the executable with markup >> saying "beginning/end of material that is part of the work XXX", and then >> claim the file is an aggrevation of different works, which just happens to >> be interpreted as an executable program by the OS. > >Since things like intention matter--and not just technical >mechanism--this is just FUD. "FUD" ? On what do you base your opinion that intent has any significance for whether the GPL allows an action? It clearly says You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. and I don't see any reference in it to the intent of the licensee (only to the intent of the license, but that is something quite different). Furthermore I don't see that there would necessarily be any difference in intent. Certainly if one writes a program whose only purpose is to demonstrate a legal loophole there would be a difference in intent, but that isn't the interesting case. In the interesting case the intent is to "make a single file program, incorporating various pieces of free software (some of which are GPL and some of which are GPL-incompatible), that does X". The "X" could be to display a certain picture; PS files can have this intent, but there are also C programs with the same intent. And just to make sure we're clear on what my point is: Incorporating a GPLed font in a PS document does, in contrast to what you claimed, have (in many cases) unwanted legal implications; if it didn't then there would be a simple workaround for GPL-incompatibility. Lars Hellström
Re: Font license recommendation
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 17:24, Lars Hellström wrote: > It odd to see such a conviction that "this is aggregation, which is > harmless" here on this list, considering that it was recently claimed that > a tarball (!) must be considered to be single work until proof of the > contrary has been obtained, without any objections from the regulars. Can > anyone think of any use other than aggregation for a tarball? But perhaps > there are double standards at work ... I argued that a tarball must be considered a derived work, but I was arguing in reference to the LPPL, not the GPL. The draft of the LPPL under discussion at that point had no "mere aggregation" clause. There is no question that a tarball is a derived work of the files contained within it. The GPL, however, allows that its conditions concerning derived works need not hold to "mere aggregations", which allows the kinds of discussions we're having here. The LPPL does not allow these kinds of discussions, however, because it lacks a similar clause.
Re: Font license recommendation
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It odd to see such a conviction that "this is aggregation, which is > harmless" here on this list, considering that it was recently claimed that > a tarball (!) must be considered to be single work until proof of the > contrary has been obtained, without any objections from the regulars. Can > anyone think of any use other than aggregation for a tarball? But perhaps > there are double standards at work ... I don't know who said that. It depends on the facts. Some tarballs might be combined works, and some might be mere aggregation. It depends on the details, and what people are doing with it, and what it really is, and not on what particular technical mechanism is in use. > I doubt this argument could work. However if it did then it certainly would > provide a technical solution to the (obnoxious?) GPL incompatibility > problem: just design the linker so that it pads the executable with markup > saying "beginning/end of material that is part of the work XXX", and then > claim the file is an aggrevation of different works, which just happens to > be interpreted as an executable program by the OS. Since things like intention matter--and not just technical mechanism--this is just FUD.
Re: Font license recommendation
At 04.42 +0200 2002-07-31, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The problem with GPL'ing is that anyone who recieves a PS file using a >> GPL'ed font could then claim that the PS file in its entirety must be >> GPL'ed and thus request to get the (.tex or similar) sources for the PS >> file, since these would be "the preferred form for making modifications". > >If the font is really separate: that is, if the encoding is done in >such a way that it's easily extractable, then it clearly seems like a >case of a mere aggregation. It odd to see such a conviction that "this is aggregation, which is harmless" here on this list, considering that it was recently claimed that a tarball (!) must be considered to be single work until proof of the contrary has been obtained, without any objections from the regulars. Can anyone think of any use other than aggregation for a tarball? But perhaps there are double standards at work ... I don't believe that interpretation of the GPL aggregation clause In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. is plausible enough to rely on in my case, but it could be interesting to examine the matter more closely. Webster's New Illustrated Dictionary defines "aggregation" as "a collection of particulars" and a "particular" as "an individual thing or point or quality". Is it then the case that anything which is a collection of things with individuality becomes an aggregation? The "it's just an aggregation" argument against the GPL would then be that as long as you can tell, for each piece of code in a program, whether it is generated from GPLed source or non-GPLed source, then the program as a whole is merely an aggregation and the condition in the GPL that a combined work must be GPLed would not apply. I doubt this argument could work. However if it did then it certainly would provide a technical solution to the (obnoxious?) GPL incompatibility problem: just design the linker so that it pads the executable with markup saying "beginning/end of material that is part of the work XXX", and then claim the file is an aggrevation of different works, which just happens to be interpreted as an executable program by the OS. Theoretical excursions aside, it seems to me that the Design Science License (as suggested by Martin Schröder), with an extra clause (as suggested by Walter Landry) that inclusion in documents is fine, will be appropriate for what I had in mind. In particular a renaming clause certainly is a *good* thing when it comes to fonts and the like. Lars Hellström
Re: Font license recommendation
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01.14 +0200 2002-07-29, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > >It would be better to give an explicit permission to use the font > >freely in documents. The case is so special that it is not advisable > >to rely on analogies with software. > > You mean I could say something like > > This font is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public > License ... > Furthermore the font can be included in documents without > any additional restriction. > > ? I suspect the wording in that "furthermore" clause could be tricky > however. Verbatim copying is too restrictive, since fonts are commonly > subsetted as part of the inclusion process. It is probably better to use something like what libgcj uses As a special exception, if you use these fonts to produce a document, these fonts do not by themselves cause the resulting document to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the document might be covered by the GNU General Public License. That way, people simply creating documents wouldn't have to worry (much like people who use gcj don't have to worry). However, someone modifying the fonts and distributing it will have to make "source" available. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Font license recommendation
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The problem with GPL'ing is that anyone who recieves a PS file using a > GPL'ed font could then claim that the PS file in its entirety must be > GPL'ed and thus request to get the (.tex or similar) sources for the PS > file, since these would be "the preferred form for making modifications". If the font is really separate: that is, if the encoding is done in such a way that it's easily extractable, then it clearly seems like a case of a mere aggregation.
Re: Font license recommendation
At 01.14 +0200 2002-07-29, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >Some document formats include programmatic fonts in the document. This is indeed the custom for PS and PDF, yes. Furthermore I'm afraid this is how the font would normally be used. >I think here the question is whether the combination is font-program >plus text is a single program or not. This comes up if the license >you want is the GPL. It would be bizarre in the extreme, it seems to >me, to regard the combination as a single program (at least, assuming >you don't massively intertwine them). I think this would be a matter >of mere aggregation. PDF files are mainly data, but it quite reasonable to think of a PS file as a program (a program that tells the printer to draw the thing you want to print). In fact, PS files are often more program-like than PS Type 1 fonts are! The problem with GPL'ing is that anyone who recieves a PS file using a GPL'ed font could then claim that the PS file in its entirety must be GPL'ed and thus request to get the (.tex or similar) sources for the PS file, since these would be "the preferred form for making modifications". >However, note that if the document format distributes font-programs in >something other than source, and you want to use the GPL, you need to >make sure the source gets sent along with the font-program somehow. >(Perhaps the document format has some kind of comment syntax where you >could stash it.) It could in principle be included as comments, but that would look truly bizarre. Another reason not to use GPL, then! At 15.25 +0200 2002-07-29, Henning Makholm wrote: >Scripsit Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> It seems that you consider the inclusion of fonts to be the same as >> linking of libraries. Then LGPL might be what you need. > >The LGPL's rule would mean that it would be forbidden to distribute >compound works "linked" in such a way that the font cannot be changed >independently of the rest of the contents. In some jurisdiction this >might prevent the production of hardcopy documents using the typeface. This sounds strange. Isn't the hardcopy rather output from the program? >It would be better to give an explicit permission to use the font >freely in documents. The case is so special that it is not advisable >to rely on analogies with software. You mean I could say something like This font is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License ... Furthermore the font can be included in documents without any additional restriction. ? I suspect the wording in that "furthermore" clause could be tricky however. Verbatim copying is too restrictive, since fonts are commonly subsetted as part of the inclusion process. >With such an explicit permission, the GPL would seem to be suitable - >the metafont (or whatever) source could play the role of .. well, >"source", and bitmapped renderings or translations into write-only >formats (postscript type 1??) would count as "binaries". The latter of these, yes. Bitmaps are generally deprecated these days. >Of course, depending on one's personal preferences, a BSD style >license could do the job, too. BSD style licenses doesn't seem to require that the source is made available. That it should be available was my main reason not to simply choose public domain. Lars Hellström
Re: Font license recommendation
Scripsit Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It seems that you consider the inclusion of fonts to be the same as > linking of libraries. Then LGPL might be what you need. The LGPL's rule would mean that it would be forbidden to distribute compound works "linked" in such a way that the font cannot be changed independently of the rest of the contents. In some jurisdiction this might prevent the production of hardcopy documents using the typeface. It would be better to give an explicit permission to use the font freely in documents. The case is so special that it is not advisable to rely on analogies with software. With such an explicit permission, the GPL would seem to be suitable - the metafont (or whatever) source could play the role of .. well, "source", and bitmapped renderings or translations into write-only formats (postscript type 1??) would count as "binaries". Of course, depending on one's personal preferences, a BSD style license could do the job, too. -- Henning Makholm "They are trying to prove a hypothesis, they are down here gathering data every season, they're publishing results in peer-reviewed journals. They're wrong, I think, but they are still scientists." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Font license recommendation
On 2002-07-28 23:20:51 +0200, Lars Hellström wrote: > What license should I use if I want to make a _font_ free software? Have a look at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses The Design Science License is especially interesting since it's CopyLeft plus renaming. > Originally I was thinking about the GPL, but then it occurred to me that > this could have unwanted contamination effects on documents that use the > font. Public domain wouldn't guarantee an open source status. "The aggregation of the Work with other works that are not based on the Work -- such as but not limited to inclusion in a publication, broadcast, compilation, or other media -- does not bring the other works in the scope of the License; nor does such aggregation void the terms of the License for the Work." Best regards Martin -- Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Straße 8, D-28359 Bremen Voice +49 421 20419-44 / Fax +49 421 20419-10 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Font license recommendation
Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks for pointing this out. Do you know a generic term? Microsoft > Windows has it's Windings, too... I think "symbol font" is the only generic around to use; alas, "symbol font" also includes math fonts and the like, which (in the US) aren't any more copyrightable than letter glyphs. > > The precedents in the United States are about fonts for letters. > > I don't know about (but I could be wrong) about any font precedents > whatsoever in Sweden, so TINLA, but we have copyright for anything > just as long as it's original enough. It would take much for letters > to be considered original. IIRC, it is an odd fluke that the US does not permit copyright of font glyphs. So if that's so, it's a curiosity that isn't terribly relevant to the usual international context of free software. > I don't know if it can be called a font of letters because they don't > look like letters at all. Well, they're fictional alien letters, from > a fictional language that's just like english only with very different > letters. Yeah, who knows!? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Font license recommendation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think that dingbat fonts, with different symbols or pictures instead > > of letters, are copyrightable here, I'm getting tired. I meant to clarify "here in Sweden". > > and normal ones too, if they're > > different enough. Like the Futurama "alien" alphabet, that would be > > copyrightable here, even if it had been a bitmap font. > > Note that "Dingbat" is not a generic actually, but a very specific > set of glyphs designed by Herman Zaph. Thanks for pointing this out. Do you know a generic term? Microsoft Windows has it's Windings, too... > The precedents in the United States are about fonts for letters. I don't know about (but I could be wrong) about any font precedents whatsoever in Sweden, so TINLA, but we have copyright for anything just as long as it's original enough. It would take much for letters to be considered original. > Symbols, dunno. Bitmaps of the Futurama font, if it's a font of > letters, are not copyrightable, regardless how clever or different it > is. I don't know if it can be called a font of letters because they don't look like letters at all. Well, they're fictional alien letters, from a fictional language that's just like english only with very different letters. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Font license recommendation
Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > If you mean a bitmap font, then it's already free, because bitmap > > fonts are not copyrightable (in the US, at any rate; I'm not familiar > > with the law everywhere). > > I think that dingbat fonts, with different symbols or pictures instead > of letters, are copyrightable here, and normal ones too, if they're > different enough. Like the Futurama "alien" alphabet, that would be > copyrightable here, even if it had been a bitmap font. Note that "Dingbat" is not a generic actually, but a very specific set of glyphs designed by Herman Zaph. The precedents in the United States are about fonts for letters. Symbols, dunno. Bitmaps of the Futurama font, if it's a font of letters, are not copyrightable, regardless how clever or different it is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Font license recommendation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > If you mean a bitmap font, then it's already free, because bitmap > fonts are not copyrightable (in the US, at any rate; I'm not familiar > with the law everywhere). I think that dingbat fonts, with different symbols or pictures instead of letters, are copyrightable here, and normal ones too, if they're different enough. Like the Futurama "alien" alphabet, that would be copyrightable here, even if it had been a bitmap font. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Font license recommendation
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What license should I use if I want to make a _font_ free software? If you mean a bitmap font, then it's already free, because bitmap fonts are not copyrightable (in the US, at any rate; I'm not familiar with the law everywhere). If you mean a physical font, the same is also true. If you mean a programmatic font, then the program is a program, and you can use whatever free software license you like. So *.mf, for example, should be licensed under your favorite free software license. If you mean a bitmap font, like the output of METAFONT, then it's like any other bitmap font, and it's already free. Some document formats include programmatic fonts in the document. I think here the question is whether the combination is font-program plus text is a single program or not. This comes up if the license you want is the GPL. It would be bizarre in the extreme, it seems to me, to regard the combination as a single program (at least, assuming you don't massively intertwine them). I think this would be a matter of mere aggregation. However, note that if the document format distributes font-programs in something other than source, and you want to use the GPL, you need to make sure the source gets sent along with the font-program somehow. (Perhaps the document format has some kind of comment syntax where you could stash it.) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Font license recommendation
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:20:51 +0200 > From: Lars =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What license should I use if I want to make a _font_ free software? > > Originally I was thinking about the GPL, but then it occurred to me that > this could have unwanted contamination effects on documents that use the > font. Public domain wouldn't guarantee an open source status. > It seems that you consider the inclusion of fonts to be the same as linking of libraries. Then LGPL might be what you need. -- Good luck -Boris Never lend your car to anyone to whom you have given birth. -- Erma Bombeck -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Font license recommendation
Since I'm anyway reading debian-legal right now (although I'm not on it, so I'd appreciate if answers are Cc'ed to me), I supposed I'd better take the opportunity to ask the following question: What license should I use if I want to make a _font_ free software? Originally I was thinking about the GPL, but then it occurred to me that this could have unwanted contamination effects on documents that use the font. Public domain wouldn't guarantee an open source status. Lars Hellström -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
