Bug#182402: ttf-freefont is violating the GNU GPL
Package: ttf-freefont Version: 20021016-2 Severity: serious The package ttf-freefont is licensed under the GNU General Public License, as listed in the appended debian/copyright file. I can confirm this from http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/COPYING . Since ttf-freefont _does_ _not_ include the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, nor does it have a written offer, nor does it pass on information received; this package and Debian is in violation of Section 3 of freefont's license. I recommend that you immediately upload a package containing the source SFD files to satisfy our licensing obligations. You should use both http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-ttf.tar.gz and http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-sfd.tar.gz to construct the package. --- BEGIN debian/copyright --- This package was debianized by Peter Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:42:49 +1000. It was downloaded from http://www.nongnu.org/freefont/ Upstream Author: Primoz Peterlin Copyright: This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License with your Debian GNU/Linux system, in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, or with the Debian GNU/Linux ttf-freefont source package as the file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. END debian/copyright As well, the debian/copyright notice does not actually specify the correct copyright statement. I suggest revising it thus: --- BEGIN suggested debian/copyright --- This package was debianized by Peter Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:42:49 +1000. It was downloaded from http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/ Upstream Maintainer: Primoz Peterlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright: freefont is a collection of free Universal Character Set outline fonts. Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'. END suggested debian/copyright
Re: GNOME Font Copyright
Don Armstrong wrote: As far as I can tell, the vera fonts are not available from gnome's ftp site yet. [Feel free to provide linkage to demonstrate otherwise.] See http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ for the link to the following file. $ wget --spider --server-response http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/bitstream-vera/1.0/bitstream-vera-1.0.tar.gz --04:23:25-- http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/bitstream-vera/1.0/bitstream-vera-1.0.tar.gz = bitstream-vera-1.0.tar.gz' Resolving ftp.gnome.org... done. Connecting to ftp.gnome.org[130.239.18.173]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 1 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:55:53 GMT 3 Server: Apache/2.0.44 (Unix) 4 Last-Modified: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:11:40 GMT 5 ETag: 4325f-40c84-dc74f700 6 Accept-Ranges: bytes 7 Content-Length: 265348 8 Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100 9 Connection: Keep-Alive 10 Content-Type: application/x-tar 11 Content-Encoding: x-gzip 200 OK I asked: If so, where did you get this information? Don Armstrong responded: The press release [...] is fairly clear that Bitstream is planning on releasing the fonts under a license that will fulfill DFSG #1: I understand that to be true, but you have misinterpreted my question. I asked if my understanding of the exchange was correct--GNOME distributes Bitstream's non-free Vera fonts and in exchange Bitstream eventually supplies DFSG-free software. I'm trying to learn precisely why GNOME chose to distribute non-free software. GNOME is an official part of GNU, according to the front page of their website. The GNU project is widely known for discouraging people from getting involved with non-free software. Therefore GNOME's distribution of non-free software is rather confusing. Could you please be a bit more specific as to why you see the draft license encumbering your freedom to do with the fonts as you wish? I don't care all that much what the draft license says until some software is released under it. In another post to debian-legal I encouraged Debian to basically ignore the draft license until some software is released under it. So let's fast-forward to the day when the Vera font family is distributed under that license. I think the can't-distribute-fonts-alone-for-a-fee clause is counterproductive because 1. that clause won't achieve the end Bitstream claims it was put in there to achieve[1]. That clause is so easy to evade it won't stop most competitors from putting these fonts into their font sale systems. 2. that clause might be the only clause keeping Bitstream's license from being a Free Software license. It would be a shame to throw away so much for no real gain. On a personal level, that clause's uniqueness looks like a potential pain in the ass to comply with because I find it handy to distribute individual programs for a fee. I'll have to either not distribute these fonts for a fee or remember that there's a peculiarity in the license that prevents me from treating these fonts like I treat every other program I distribute for a fee. I'm not sure I follow your argument about the software (well, fonts in this case) being DFSG free but not being Free Software. Free Software is the term I understand to refer to the GNU project's term. DFSG-free is a different term I understand to refer to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The Open Source Definition is different from both of them, a term I understand to refer to what licenses stand a chance of being approved as an Open Source license by OSI. I try to distinguish among these terms because they define different things and they serve different purposes. The first and the last of them even go with different movements. As I understand things, Bitstream's fonts are intended to someday become acceptable to the Open Source movement and Debian. The can't-distribute-fonts-alone-for-a-fee clause appears to have been written such that it will still be agreeable to both OSI and Debian. Whether that clause keeps these fonts from being Free Software, I remain interested to learn. [1] http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ in the Final Copyright FAQ.
Re: GNOME Font Copyright
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.B. Nicholson-Owens) In another post to debian-legal I encouraged Debian to basically ignore the draft license until some software is released under it. On debian-legal, we're usually happy to work with software authors to get the warts removed from their draft license *before* they carve it in stone and release software under it. It happens all too seldom. I think the can't-distribute-fonts-alone-for-a-fee clause is counterproductive I think everyone on this list agrees that it is stupid. It is, however, stupid without being actually harmful, and it is (very close to explicitly) permitted by the wording of DFSG #1. [snip: poster supports the FSFs attempts to monopolize the word free as applied to software] Whether that clause keeps these fonts from being Free Software, I remain interested to learn. You'd better ask the FSF about that, then. -- Henning Makholm ... and that Greek, Thucydides
Re: GNOME Font Copyright
On Feb 25, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: I asked if my understanding of the exchange was correct--GNOME distributes Bitstream's non-free Vera fonts and in exchange Bitstream eventually supplies DFSG-free software. I believe this is incorrect -- I don't think that GNOME is compelled to distribute nonfree beta versions in order to receive the final free version -- but if you want a definitive answer you should contact Jim Gettys of the GNOME Foundation [EMAIL PROTECTED], who worked with Bitstream to make the Vera fonts free. My understanding is that the software is ready for use, while the legal steps to finalize the license are not. Bitstream and GNOME have decided to offer a preview of an upcoming free software product. Many important Free Software projects have been temporarily non-free for similar reasons; for example, the hpijs project was under a semi- restricted license until legal reviews allowed the owner to make the software completely free. If the intermediate non-free stage helps the owner's transition to free software, then I am in favor of it. I'm trying to learn precisely why GNOME chose to distribute non-free software. Sometimes you make free software by writing code. Other times you make free software by getting involved with non-free software and guiding it on the path toward being free. I understand the position that all non-free software distribution harms users, without exception. RMS gives some well-reasoned arguments for this view. But I disagree with him, and apparently at least some members of the GNOME Foundation do too. I think the can't-distribute-fonts-alone-for-a-fee clause is counterproductive [...] I agree that it is counterproductive. I also feel that certain requirements of the Artistic License and the GNU GPL are counter- productive, but I am willing to put up with some inconvenience in order to honor the authors' wishes. The important thing to me is that the software gives me the freedoms that ensure I can use it productively. Authors often protect their own interests in ways that cause extra hassle for others distributing their software. As long as I still have the rights I require, I will still use the software even if it means potential extra work for me. The FSF makes a distinction between licenses that eliminate freedoms, and licenses that annoy users who practice those freedoms. About the original BSD license, for example, they say: The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL. Of course, even if we consider the draft license free, it is reasonable to want to remove the practical problems. Has anyone sent feedback to Bitstream and the GNOME Foundation suggesting alternate terms that might be acceptable for Bitstream? I think the language in Section 5 of the Artistic License (do not advertise this Package as a product of your own) might be a less cumbersome way for Bitstream to protect their interests.
Re: GNOME Font Copyright
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: I asked if my understanding of the exchange was correct--GNOME distributes Bitstream's non-free Vera fonts and in exchange Bitstream eventually supplies DFSG-free software. You're asking the wrong people then, since (as far as I know) none of -legal were involved in the bargaining, we can't answer that question. Howver, I personally would be very surprised if there was a quid pro quo involved. that clause might be the only clause keeping Bitstream's license from being a Free Software license. Could you expand on your reasoning why that clause would keep Bitstream's license from being a Free Software license while it would qualify under the DFSG? On a personal level, that clause's uniqueness looks like a potential pain in the ass to comply with because I find it handy to distribute individual programs for a fee. So just remember to distribute the fonts with Gnome. Anytime you're selling stuff you should (probably) be retaining legal counsel to comb through the licenses and accertain the legality of what you are doing. I'm not sure I follow your argument about the software (well, fonts in this case) being DFSG free but not being Free Software. Free Software is the term I understand to refer to the GNU project's term. DFSG-free is a different term I understand to refer to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. That's precisely my question. Why does the inability to sell these fonts alone make them not Free Software (while they remain DFSG free)? As far as I can tell, the inability to sell them alone does not restrict any of the 4 freedoms required for software to be free software.[1] * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, Chew more! Do more! The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpNs1ZRzFset.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#182402: ttf-freefont is violating the GNU GPL
Hi... On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 01:17:00AM -0500, Simon Law wrote: Package: ttf-freefont Version: 20021016-2 Severity: serious The package ttf-freefont is licensed under the GNU General Public License, as listed in the appended debian/copyright file. I can confirm this from http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/COPYING . Since ttf-freefont _does_ _not_ include the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, Yes it does. It includes complete machine readable source code of the fonts in a particular format (ie. TTF). Since TTF files are effectively like images (albeit in a very specialised format), you can modify and improve them with the appropriate tools. True, there are other formats you could provide the fonts in, but I would argue that TTF fulfils all the requirements of source code based distribution. In fact, if you pay close attention to the file dates in the upstream archive, it appears freefont-ttf-20020306.tar.gz is the newest release for the TTF files, and freefont-sfd.tar.gz (dated 2003/02/19) is the newest release of the SFD files. Even upstream doesn't seem to release SFD files quite as often as TTF files. I recommend that you immediately upload a package containing the source SFD files to satisfy our licensing obligations. You should use both http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-ttf.tar.gz and http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-sfd.tar.gz to construct the package. Well, I can do this but I would like an opinion from debian-legal before I haemorrhage archive space like this (this would triple the size of the source package from 1.2mb to more like 3.9mb). If you really thought this was the way to go, I guess I would instead Build-Depend on pfaedit and have to automate the generation of the TrueType fonts. I'll ask upstream about this today. =) Peter --- BEGIN debian/copyright --- This package was debianized by Peter Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:42:49 +1000. It was downloaded from http://www.nongnu.org/freefont/ Upstream Author: Primoz Peterlin Copyright: This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License with your Debian GNU/Linux system, in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, or with the Debian GNU/Linux ttf-freefont source package as the file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. END debian/copyright As well, the debian/copyright notice does not actually specify the correct copyright statement. I suggest revising it thus: --- BEGIN suggested debian/copyright --- This package was debianized by Peter Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:42:49 +1000. It was downloaded from http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/ Upstream Maintainer: Primoz Peterlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright: freefont is a collection of free Universal Character Set outline fonts. Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'. END suggested debian/copyright
Re: Bug#182402: ttf-freefont is violating the GNU GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Hawkins) wrote: Hi... On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 01:17:00AM -0500, Simon Law wrote: Package: ttf-freefont Version: 20021016-2 Severity: serious The package ttf-freefont is licensed under the GNU General Public License, as listed in the appended debian/copyright file. I can confirm this from http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/COPYING . Since ttf-freefont _does_ _not_ include the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, Yes it does. It includes complete machine readable source code of the fonts in a particular format (ie. TTF). Since TTF files are effectively like images (albeit in a very specialised format), you can modify and improve them with the appropriate tools. True, there are other formats you could provide the fonts in, but I would argue that TTF fulfils all the requirements of source code based distribution. The GPL requires that you provide whatever is the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. If the preferred form for modifying these fonts is TTF, then TTF is fine. If it is SFD, then Debian has to distribute that as well. In fact, if you pay close attention to the file dates in the upstream archive, it appears freefont-ttf-20020306.tar.gz is the newest release for the TTF files, and freefont-sfd.tar.gz (dated 2003/02/19) is the newest release of the SFD files. Even upstream doesn't seem to release SFD files quite as often as TTF files. If upstream doesn't distribute the source, then Debian can't distribute the binary. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#182402: ttf-freefont is violating the GNU GPL
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:10:58AM +1100, Peter Hawkins wrote: Hi... On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 01:17:00AM -0500, Simon Law wrote: Package: ttf-freefont Version: 20021016-2 Severity: serious The package ttf-freefont is licensed under the GNU General Public License, as listed in the appended debian/copyright file. I can confirm this from http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/COPYING . Since ttf-freefont _does_ _not_ include the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, Yes it does. It includes complete machine readable source code of the fonts in a particular format (ie. TTF). Since TTF files are effectively like images (albeit in a very specialised format), you can modify and improve them with the appropriate tools. True, there are other formats you could provide the fonts in, but I would argue that TTF fulfils all the requirements of source code based distribution. Section 3 of the GNU General Public License contains the following text: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. If you can legitimately justify that the preferred form for modifications is the ttf files, then by all means, distribute them as source. But I would argue that is not the case. The README [0] states: The files with .sfd (Spline Font Database) are in PfaEdit's native format. Please use these if you plan to modify the font files. PfaEdit can export these to mostly any existing font file format. In fact, if you pay close attention to the file dates in the upstream archive, it appears freefont-ttf-20020306.tar.gz is the newest release for the TTF files, and freefont-sfd.tar.gz (dated 2003/02/19) is the newest release of the SFD files. Even upstream doesn't seem to release SFD files quite as often as TTF files. Excuse me? 2003 is sooner than 2002. I recommend that you immediately upload a package containing the source SFD files to satisfy our licensing obligations. You should use both http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-ttf.tar.gz and http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-sfd.tar.gz to construct the package. Well, I can do this but I would like an opinion from debian-legal before I haemorrhage archive space like this (this would triple the size of the source package from 1.2mb to more like 3.9mb). If you really thought this was the way to go, I guess I would instead Build-Depend on pfaedit and have to automate the generation of the TrueType fonts. It really doesn't matter to me how you do it. I don't know if pfaedit can create ttf files from the command line, though. As well, the debian/copyright notice does not actually specify the correct copyright statement. I suggest revising it thus: This needs to be fixed anyway. The notice of copyright is important. [0] http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/README -- Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7 Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. --Douglas Adams pgpxii2kl1FUo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#182402: ttf-freefont is violating the GNU GPL
Hi... On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:22:25PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:10:58AM +1100, Peter Hawkins wrote: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. If you can legitimately justify that the preferred form for modifications is the ttf files, then by all means, distribute them as source. But I would argue that is not the case. The README [0] states: Ok. I'll accept that - I wasn't reading the GPL that closely. In fact, if you pay close attention to the file dates in the upstream archive, it appears freefont-ttf-20020306.tar.gz is the newest release for the TTF files, and freefont-sfd.tar.gz (dated 2003/02/19) is the newest release of the SFD files. Even upstream doesn't seem to release SFD files quite as often as TTF files. Excuse me? 2003 is sooner than 2002. Sorry, brain is asleep (not much sleep last night). I recommend that you immediately upload a package containing the source SFD files to satisfy our licensing obligations. You should use both http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-ttf.tar.gz and http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-sfd.tar.gz to construct the package. Well, I can do this but I would like an opinion from debian-legal before I haemorrhage archive space like this (this would triple the size of the source package from 1.2mb to more like 3.9mb). If you really thought this was the way to go, I guess I would instead Build-Depend on pfaedit and have to automate the generation of the TrueType fonts. It really doesn't matter to me how you do it. I don't know if pfaedit can create ttf files from the command line, though. It can, but I don't totally understand the finer details of how it is done. I email upstream earlier to ask. I'll upload a 'fat' package as suggested soon, and a better package when I get an upstream response. As well, the debian/copyright notice does not actually specify the correct copyright statement. I suggest revising it thus: This needs to be fixed anyway. The notice of copyright is important. Ok. =) Peter
