Re: Font license and inclusion in debian (RTP 719605)
Vincent Lhote deb...@vincent.lhote.name writes: I was pointed to a font and thought it would be a fine addition to Debian. But the text of its license makes me wonder if it can be included. Thank you for taking software freedom seriously! Debian is an entirely free-software operating system, so for the font to be in Debian will require that its license not restrict freedoms described in the Debian Free Software Guidelines, part of the project's Social Contract URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract. I did some search, and I think it can be included, at least in non-free. The ‘non-free’ and ‘contrib’ sections are not part of Debian, though the packages contained there can be installed by a Debian user. I was wondering if the no derivative clause would prevent it from being included in the main archive. Yes, this fails DFSG #3, so the work cannot be in Debian. Reading it again, I see there is also a no commercial use of the font, I’m getting sure it can not be in main. Yes, this fails DFSG #6, so the work cannot be in Debian. Can it be in non-free then? Possibly. I'll leave that for others to answer. -- \ “My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves | `\ to fact, not to try and make facts harmonise with my | _o__) aspirations.“ —Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860-09-23 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/7wd2pe5c7y@benfinney.id.au
Font license and inclusion in debian (RTP 719605)
Dear Debian legal team, I was pointed to a font and thought it would be a fine addition to Debian. But the text of its license makes me wonder if it can be included. I did some search, and I think it can be included, at least in non-free. I was wondering if the no derivative clause would prevent it from being included in the main archive. Reading it again, I see there is also a no commercial use of the font, I’m getting sure it can not be in main. Can it be in non-free then? I’ll include the text of the license for ease of reference. - [The English version of this License is reproduced below.] [El texto en espanol se presenta sin acentos ni diacriticos de modo intencional.] Reglas de uso Usted puede: -Instalar las fuentes tipograficas en tantos dispositivos como desee. -Distribuir las fuentes tipograficas a quienes desee. -Utilizar las fuentes tipograficas en documentos comerciales y no comerciales. -Guardar las fuentes tipograficas en un formato que se adapte mejor a sus propositos. Pero no puede: -Modificar las fuentes tipograficas en un programa de edicion tipografica. -Vender o rentar las fuentes tipograficas. Notas: -Las fuentes tipograficas y cualquier otro material escrito o electronico que las acompañen se proporcionan en su estado actual sin garantia de ninguna especie, expresa o implicita. Los autores no garantizan que las funciones contenidas en las fuentes tipograficas seran las mismas que las requeridas por el usuario. -Los autores no seran responsables por danos directos, indirectos, consecuentes o incidentales (incluyendo los danos por perdida de ganancias, interrupcion del negocio, perdida de informacion y similares) que surjan del uso o incapacidad de uso de las fuentes tipograficas. --- Conditions of use You may: -Install the fonts on as many devices as you wish. -Distribute the fonts to anyone you wish. -Use the fonts in any commercial or non-commercial document. -Save the fonts in a format that would best fit your purposes. You may not: -Modify the fonts in a font editor software. -Sell or rent out the fonts. Notes: -The fonts and any other accompanying written or electronic materials are provided as is without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied. The authors do not warrant that the functions contained in the fonts will meet the user's requirements. -The authors shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages (including damages from loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, and the like) arising out of the use of or inability to use the fonts - Regards, -- Vincent Lhote signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Font license and inclusion in debian (RTP 719605)
On 13304 March 1977, Vincent Lhote wrote: Conditions of use You may: -Install the fonts on as many devices as you wish. -Distribute the fonts to anyone you wish. -Use the fonts in any commercial or non-commercial document. -Save the fonts in a format that would best fit your purposes. You may not: -Modify the fonts in a font editor software. -Sell or rent out the fonts. Non-free is ok for this. That basically just requires distribution rights, which are given. -- bye, Joerg lamont is there a tag for won't be fixed until sarge+1? sam depends whether the BTS is year 2037 compliant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ioz774qj@gkar.ganneff.de
Font license
Hello, I am considering to package a font, its license is as follows: By installing this Font You accept all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Copyright (c) 2010 by King Fahd Glorious Quran Printing Complex (KFGQPC), AlMadinah AlMunawarrah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. All Rights Reserved. KFGQPC retains full title and ownership of this Typeface both as artwork and font software. This Agreement does not grant you any intellectual property rights in the Font. Permission is hereby granted, Free of Cost, to any person obtaining a copy of this Font accompanying this license, the rights to Use, Copy, Distribute, subject to the following conditions: 1.The Font Software cannot be Sold, Modified, Altered, Translated, Reverse Engineered, Decompiled, Disassembled, Reproduced or Attempted to discover the Source Code of this Font in no means. 2.The Font Software is provided AS IS, and KFGQPC makes no warranties as to its use or performance, fitness for a particular purpose. KFGQPC does not and cannot warrant the performance or results you may obtain by using the Font. In no event shall KFGQPC be liable for any Claims, Damages or other Liability, including any Damages, arising from, out of the use or inability to use the Font or from other dealings in the Font. Is that acceptable in Debian non-free ? Please CC me in replies, since I am not subscribed to the list. -- أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy) Digital design engineer GPG KeyID: 0xEDDDA1B7 GPG Fingerprint: 8206 A196 2084 7E6D 0DF8 B176 BC19 6A94 EDDD A1B7 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Font license
Hi! Am 09.05.2011 15:09, schrieb أحمد المحمودي: Permission is hereby granted, Free of Cost, to any person obtaining a copy of this Font accompanying this license, the rights to Use, Copy, Distribute, subject to the following conditions: [..] Is that acceptable in Debian non-free ? That gives Debian as well as its mirrors and users the right to distribute it. That's enough for Debian non-free. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dc7ee04.5060...@debian.org
Re: Font license
Le Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:09:15PM +0200, أحمد المحمودي a écrit : 1.The Font Software cannot be Sold, Modified, Altered, Translated, Reverse Engineered, Decompiled, Disassembled, Reproduced or Attempted to discover the Source Code of this Font in no means. Dear Ahmed, this is very restrictive and somewhat ambiguous. For instance depending on what “Reproduced” is interpreted it may mean that we can not redistribute copies. Perhaps you can try the other way round: explaining the DFSG upstream, and asking them if they confirm that their license is compatible with our guidelines, after undelining the potential problems. This may be a good opportunity to ask them if they would kindly consider a free license, or at least a non-free license that is already in Debian. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110509134452.ga32...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
Hi Josselin, On Sun, 31 May 2009 19:00:13 +0200 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: Otherwise, it’s a simple license with a strong copyleft, which should be fine for Debian. Okay, thanks for your comment, I'll put it into main :) -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/iijmio-mail.jp http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
Hello, Dmitrijs! You wrote to debian-legal@lists.debian.org on Sun, 31 May 2009 18:58:04 +0100: 2009/5/31 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org: Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 ? 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a ?crit : ÿI've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. ÿYou can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html ÿPlease give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. For derived works: ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿNo one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿprogram name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. And for redistribution without modification: ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. This is a long standing tradition within TeX to prevent namespace collision. Back in the old days it was important that if you modify and release something and you are not the original author you have to change the name of the package such that you don't break the compatability with all the TeX documents in the wild. That's a noble goal but it doesn't make it DFSG-free. AFAIR the idea is that filenames are functional so a DFSG-free license cannot prohibit their change. This clause comes from (off top of my head) the LaTeX license LPPL just codified what was there long before. which FSF declared as GPL incompatible due to this renaming forcing clause. TeXLive is in Debian and a lot of it is license under Latex license so that bit is DFSG-free but the example above is self-contradicting. I think the author intended to use the Latex license instead. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses The Latex Project Public License 1.2 I hope most (la)tex packages have migrated to LPPL-1.3 long ago (though didn't check it). And LPPL-1.3 have dropped filename change clause after lngthy discussion on debian-legal. Having said that, there were some very important files with filename change clause in their licenses -- see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/01/msg00160.html for examples. I will be glad to hear that something has changed in the last five years but I somehow doubt it. Alexander Cherepanov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
In message 1243789213.18376.224.ca...@tomoyo, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit : I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html Please give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. For derived works: No one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a program name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. And for redistribution without modification: The Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. I've read Dmitrjs response, and it seems to me this should be covered by a trademark licence. Explicitly split the copyright and trademark grants, and you'll probably be fine. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
Hi, I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. Its license, IPA Font License is OSI approved, but it doesn't mean equal to DFSG-Free. So, I'd like to ask you it is DFSG-Free or not. It is TeX-like license and has some restriction for use its name for derivatives and how to deal with modifications. You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html Please give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/iijmio-mail.jp http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit : I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html Please give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. For derived works: No one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a program name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. And for redistribution without modification: The Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. So if there are any changes, the name must be changed, and it must not be changed if there are no changes. For a regular computer program, that would imply iceweaselization, but for a font this seems reasonable: we have no practical reason to patch it in our packages, and most font systems make it easy to alias a font with another one so it’s fine for those who modify it. Otherwise, it’s a simple license with a strong copyleft, which should be fine for Debian. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?
2009/5/31 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org: Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit : I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html Please give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. For derived works: No one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a program name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. And for redistribution without modification: The Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. This is a long standing tradition within TeX to prevent namespace collision. Back in the old days it was important that if you modify and release something and you are not the original author you have to change the name of the package such that you don't break the compatability with all the TeX documents in the wild. This clause comes from (off top of my head) the LaTeX license which FSF declared as GPL incompatible due to this renaming forcing clause. TeXLive is in Debian and a lot of it is license under Latex license so that bit is DFSG-free but the example above is self-contradicting. I think the author intended to use the Latex license instead. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses The Latex Project Public License 1.2 -- And my new disclaimer ITDODLLAS = I Think Disclaimers On Debian Legal List Are Silly -- With best regards Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima), Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:41:08 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? I did. And how did they explain the difference in their conclusions?!? They didn't. However, I am not sure whether RMS's message can be considered as official position of the FSF. As far as I can see, the main argument against this license here on debian-legal was that the FSF (or RMS) had considered such licenses to be invalid. I don't think this is an accurate summary of the debian-legal discussion on the topic. The main argument was that the license (GPLv2 + restrictions) is self-contradictory and thus invalid. This conclusion was *confirmed* by RMS, who basically brought the same argument. However, I think the argument holds even if RMS and/or the FSF change(s) his/their mind(s) afterwards, unless he/they bring(s) new data to support his/their new opposite conclusion... As was already pointed out in the previous thread, this interpretation relies on that the no further restrictions clause applies to GPLv2 + restrictions, not to GPLv2 alone. I fully agree with you that the Liberation Font license is sub-optimal, however I do not see a scenario where distribution of the fonts by Debian led to legal trouble or a violation of the DFSG. Can you think of such a situation? Hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:56:25 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:41:08 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? I did. And how did they explain the difference in their conclusions?!? They didn't. However, I am not sure whether RMS's message can be considered as official position of the FSF. I would say quite official... There have been cases in the past where RMS censored GNU developers' diverging opinions. E.g.: a GNU developer (Thomas Bushnell) was dismissed by RMS for having publicly spoken against the GFDL (see http://lwn.net/Articles/59147/ and http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussioni/2003-November/008465.html). [...] The main argument was that the license (GPLv2 + restrictions) is self-contradictory and thus invalid. This conclusion was *confirmed* by RMS, who basically brought the same argument. However, I think the argument holds even if RMS and/or the FSF change(s) his/their mind(s) afterwards, unless he/they bring(s) new data to support his/their new opposite conclusion... As was already pointed out in the previous thread, this interpretation relies on that the no further restrictions clause applies to GPLv2 + restrictions, not to GPLv2 alone. I've already explained (in the cited old debian-legal thread) why I don't think this interpretation is backed by the actual GPLv2 text. I fully agree with you that the Liberation Font license is sub-optimal, however I do not see a scenario where distribution of the fonts by Debian led to legal trouble or a violation of the DFSG. Can you think of such a situation? *If* my analysis is correct, we do not have *any* valid license to distribute (let alone modify) those fonts. Hence there may be legal troubles, namely copyright violation issues, in distributing them. This makes them unsuitable even for the non-free archive! One could say that the intention of Red Hat to grant a redistribution (and modification) permission is clear, but in fact it is *not* clear *at all*, being self-contradictory! So, once again, I don't think we have a valid license to redistribute (and/or modify) those fonts... As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpjxZ4k8a7PW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Liberation Font License revisited
Hello, I've spent some time on the Liberation font license mess [1], here are my results. Red Hat's Tom Callaway (who is responsible for dealing with such licensing issues) stated that according to the FSF the license was free but GPL-incompatible [2]. I contacted the FSF to further clarify on the alleged contradiction in the terms. The reply I got says that the FSF considers this to be a valid license: 'We believe it would have been far clearer if Red Hat had created, say, the Liberation Font License with their extra conditions. However, since they are the copyright holders, they are within their rights to do it the way they did.' This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right? Best regards, Hendrik Weimer [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg36584.html [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253774#c7 -- *** OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software for GNU/Linux and more *** *** http://www.osreviews.net/*** *** OS Reviews * Hendrik Weimer Phone: +49-711-81041666 *** *** Tiroler Str. 70 * 70329 Stuttgart * GERMANY [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:18:15 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: Hello, I've spent some time on the Liberation font license mess [1], Thanks for doing that! It is really appreciated. here are my results. Red Hat's Tom Callaway (who is responsible for dealing with such licensing issues) stated that according to the FSF the license was free but GPL-incompatible [2]. I contacted the FSF to further clarify on the alleged contradiction in the terms. The reply I got says that the FSF considers this to be a valid license: 'We believe it would have been far clearer if Red Hat had created, say, the Liberation Font License with their extra conditions. However, since they are the copyright holders, they are within their rights to do it the way they did.' It seems the FSF is becoming less credible everyday... :-( I think they are applying a double standard here: when the authors of a teTeX package add a restriction to the GNU GPL v2 [3], RMS says it can't be done because it's self-contradictory [4]; when Red Hat do the same, they are within their rights to do it the way they did... [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00298.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right? This makes this license acceptable for the *FSF*, which is a different organization. As far as the Debian Project is concerned, I cannot speak on its behalf because I am not a member (IANADD). My own personal opinion is explained in the thread that you yourself cited [1], hence I won't restate it here. [...] [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg36584.html [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253774#c7 My disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpQhW2Mq67fA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think they are applying a double standard here: when the authors of a teTeX package add a restriction to the GNU GPL v2 [3], RMS says it can't be done because it's self-contradictory [4]; when Red Hat do the same, they are within their rights to do it the way they did... [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00298.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? I did. This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right? This makes this license acceptable for the *FSF*, which is a different organization. As far as I can see, the main argument against this license here on debian-legal was that the FSF (or RMS) had considered such licenses to be invalid. However, this seems not to be the case now, no matter whether the FSF changed their mind or not. Hendrik -- *** OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software for GNU/Linux and more *** *** http://www.osreviews.net/*** *** OS Reviews * Hendrik Weimer Phone: +49-711-81041666 *** *** Tiroler Str. 70 * 70329 Stuttgart * GERMANY [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Liberation Font License revisited
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:41:08 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? I did. And how did they explain the difference in their conclusions?!? This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right? This makes this license acceptable for the *FSF*, which is a different organization. As far as I can see, the main argument against this license here on debian-legal was that the FSF (or RMS) had considered such licenses to be invalid. I don't think this is an accurate summary of the debian-legal discussion on the topic. The main argument was that the license (GPLv2 + restrictions) is self-contradictory and thus invalid. This conclusion was *confirmed* by RMS, who basically brought the same argument. However, I think the argument holds even if RMS and/or the FSF change(s) his/their mind(s) afterwards, unless he/they bring(s) new data to support his/their new opposite conclusion... However, this seems not to be the case now, no matter whether the FSF changed their mind or not. I would like to hear them explain *why* the two cases (which seem basically identical to me) get two opposite conclusions from them. Could they elaborate? Or else, if they changed their minds about the teTeX case, I would like to hear them explain *why* they did. I'm really puzzled. Anyway, my disclaimers still hold: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpnrQwAQUz8m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ttf-breip with SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE
Paul Wise wrote: On Jan 15, 2008 1:17 PM, Mauro Lizaur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So should the ttf-breip font keep in main or should be moved to non-free? Sorry for my bad english, i hope you understand what i am asking here Gentium[1] and other SIL OFL licenced fonts have been accepted into Debian main, so presumably the ftpmasters believe that those OFL-licenced fonts are DFSG-free. I guess ttf-breip is therefore fine for main. 1. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/ttf-sil-gentium/current/copyright Yes, there are currently 22 fonts released under the OFL accepted by the ftp-masters in main which is a fairly good indicator of the DFSG compliance of the OFL. And about 10 in the pipeline to be packaged by members of the Debian Fonts Task Force. More open fonts are planned for release or re-licensing in the near future as well. Here's the font metadata for Breip as currently shown in the Alioth pkg-fonts team ongoing review: http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-c2ccc8555857d30ae02b5ffa20e5209e.html BTW, Mauro, can you please make sure you also ship in your package the upstream font source and documentation available on http://stalefries.googlepages.com/fontsbreip Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger http://scripts.sil.org http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/ https://launchpad.net/people/fonts signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ttf-breip with SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE
On Jan 15, 2008 7:13 PM, Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, Mauro, can you please make sure you also ship in your package the upstream font source and documentation available on http://stalefries.googlepages.com/fontsbreip I'd like to add that only the font source should be shipped in the source package, and the font binary in the arch: all binary package, the transformation would occur at package build time using a fontforge script. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ttf-breip with SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE
Hello There, I recently adopted and packaged the font ttf-breip which is already on the debian repositories on the main section. My sponsor was in doubt about the licence of the font (SIL), and double-checked if its dsfg-free or not with other DD's and some of them told her it was free and some told her that it wasn't free. Also i've read a thread on this mailing list about the gentium font with the same license [1], but i still have no answers about this font and its license. So should the ttf-breip font keep in main or should be moved to non-free? Sorry for my bad english, i hope you understand what i am asking here [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00314.html Thanks, Mauro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ttf-breip with SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE
On Jan 15, 2008 1:17 PM, Mauro Lizaur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So should the ttf-breip font keep in main or should be moved to non-free? Sorry for my bad english, i hope you understand what i am asking here Gentium[1] and other SIL OFL licenced fonts have been accepted into Debian main, so presumably the ftpmasters believe that those OFL-licenced fonts are DFSG-free. I guess ttf-breip is therefore fine for main. 1. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/ttf-sil-gentium/current/copyright -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00161.html and the reduction in mdgrams until now, for example. Or maybe the fact that in that period I changed my job, home and city. I apologize if I have not been able to spend more time answering your mails here (it is starting to get boring after a few years), I promise I will do better in the future. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize if I have not been able to spend more time answering your mails here (it is starting to get boring after a few years), I promise I will do better in the future. Please, don't bother unless you can post something justified, instead of baseless nonsense like that I somehow invented ideas from 1999 since 2003. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That says little itself: far more obviously DFSG-busting licences have snuck into debian in the past! Yes and at times some debian-legal contributors have been wrong or their analysis voted against. AFAIK the ftpmaster team still decides what goes in or not. Correct. I'd like to hear what other debian-legal and pkg-fonts contributors think. MJ Ray is a funny character with extreme opinions about what the DFSG means and most people do not take him seriously... HTH. :-) Thank you for your work on improving the OFL. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: As explained repeatedly, users should not have to configure font substitution for every new font Mmm, What? The configuration of external font substitution systems like fontconfig are outside the scope of the license. See the updated FAQ entry 2.8 which includes the claim: [...] Font substitution systems like fontconfig, or application-level font fallback configuration within OpenOffice.org or Scribus, will also get very confused if the name of the font they are configured to substitute to actually refers to another physical font on the user's hard drive. It will help everyone if Original Versions and Modified Versions can easily be distinguished from one another and from other derivatives. The substitution mechanism itself is outside the scope of the license. Users can always manually change a font reference in a document or set up some kind of substitution at a higher level but at the lower level the fonts themselves have to respect the Reserved Font Name(s) requirement to prevent ambiguity. [...] which seems to confirm that users have to configure their own font substitutions for every damned font! This isn't a freedom question: it's an ease-of-use question, so can we take this part off debian-legal if continued, please? Since when is a diff.gz understood as a derivative? Isn't it obviously derived? Please explain how you would create a diff.gz for a font without knowing the expressions used in the orig.tar.gz. [...] Ever wondered why we had so few free/open fonts until there was a good way to reach out to the font designer community with something which makes sense to them? Yes. I felt it was mostly an education problem, not a case of there being anything wrong with GPL and MIT/Expat styles for fonts. [...] I'll remind you of the current Debian policy which already has something about not creating namespace chaos: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-customized-programs.html#s11.8.5 Font packages must not provide alias names for the fonts they include which collide with alias names already in use by fonts already packaged. [...] That looks like it comes from a time before defoma, fontconfig and weighted substitution. When is it from? Should it be updated? Even the classic 'knuthian' TeX license and its children have similar requirements. Please take a look at the latest LPPL as a better licence. Please understand that this requirement makes sense. I don't agree and asking nicely isn't enough to change that. Sorry. [...] As you know the OFL has been presented at AtypI and we have received constructive feedback from the design community. Seriously, do you really think we'd add such a clause if it wasn't needed? Sorry, but I think you might (it is OFL's USP, after all) and I think the consultation results would have been published long ago if it they justified the continued inclusion. [...] As for the removal, have you read Victor Gaultney's answer on this? To quote him on OFL-discuss: I do understand your point, and even agree that trademark should be enough. But in practice it's not. RFN is a critical feature of the OFL, and does not stop designers from declaring their trademarks in addition to protecting the name through RFN. So people can fully use both. Yes and seeing it as a 'critical feature' is why it won't happen until after some font designers get burnt by it. Hopefully that will never happen, but the door is open. [...] Well, I'd say your goals of contacting the FSF behind our backs to get a license-list removal isn't terribly helpful. Erm, I questioned FSF on their interpretation and I mentioned that in a few places in public. Sorry if you missed it, but it wasn't getting a removal (I don't hold any power over FSF), wasn't behind anyone's back and wasn't a goal itself. The goal is more free software, silly. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray is a funny character with extreme opinions about what the DFSG means and most people do not take him seriously... Wow, what a lot of evidence supplied in that post(!) DFSG-revisionist Marco d'Itri posts much nonsense, from misattributed quotes, to accusations that myself and others joining debian-legal since 2003 introduced new interpretations of the DFSG, including things which had apparently been common since before 1999. Debunk him if you want to try to quieten him for a bit. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00161.html and the reduction in mdgrams until now, for example. Guilty as charged about the funny bit, though. ;-) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:57:28 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] [...] Ever wondered why we had so few free/open fonts until there was a good way to reach out to the font designer community with something which makes sense to them? Yes. I felt it was mostly an education problem, not a case of there being anything wrong with GPL and MIT/Expat styles for fonts. I agree: both GNU GPL v2 and Expat licenses could be used for fonts. We should *not* draft a new license for every community we want to reach, or otherwise the Free Software pool would get more and more balkanized... -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpNfsKrp7Kwg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MJ Ray is a funny character with extreme opinions about what the DFSG means and most people do not take him seriously... Until you've got some data to back it, please don't make claims about what most people think of a particular person. -- \Imagine a world without hypothetical situations. -- Anonymous | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
I agree: both GNU GPL v2 and Expat licenses could be used for fonts. We should *not* draft a new license for every community we want to reach, or otherwise the Free Software pool would get more and more balkanized... It would be interesting is Nicolas can (briefly) summarize in what OFL differs from GPL and why these differences are wished for fonts licesing. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
MJ Ray wrote: Nicolas Spalinger wrote: Many other key reviewers [namedrops] explained that the name change requirement is a desirable feature for fonts and that so-called ready-to-eat derivatives are problematic. A branch is something different by definition and it should identify itself as such and not masquerade itself as something else to the user. As explained repeatedly, users should not have to configure font substitution for every new font Mmm, What? The configuration of external font substitution systems like fontconfig are outside the scope of the license. See the updated FAQ entry 2.8 and especially should not have to configure gentium.deb (a simple packaging of gentium, not a font branch) as a substitute for gentium! It would help if you explained what you have in mind a bit more clearly. Since when is a diff.gz understood as a derivative? Concerning the Gentium package in Debian, the current maintainer has been unresponsive for a long time to upstream's requests for various updates and the availability of updates in the pkg-fonts svn (like removing the local.conf which is only there as an example). I'll file bugs. The font name protection is a key feature of the OFL to guaranty artistic integrity to a font designer and actually make him consider releasing his work under a free license. The fundamental problem is that OFL attempts to use copyright instead of other laws (trademarks, fraud, moral rights, and so on). In common with many other licences doing similar things, OFL needs to be used carefully to avoid trampling on the four freedoms. I disagree. Theoretically this reasoning is all good and well and I would agree with you, but in practice such an approach is needed for fonts. Ever wondered why we had so few free/open fonts until there was a good way to reach out to the font designer community with something which makes sense to them? As for similarity with other licenses, there are name-related requirements in various DFSG-approved licenses. The Free Software Definition has this to say: However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them. Worse, it's a false sense of security for font designers. A false sense of security? It's the best way we have found to protect artistic integrity while allowing derivatives. OFL does nothing to stop an unrelated font calling itself the Reserved Font Name (because it cannot do anything about it). Yes, and that's quite normal. If you start from scratch do anything you want but if you derive from an existing font don't abuse the namespace. Names should be controlled by trademark if one feels strongly enough to hinder other fonts under that name. Please re-read the license: It's not about hindering other fonts but *allowing derivatives* while keeping the namespace sane. I'll remind you of the current Debian policy which already has something about not creating namespace chaos: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-customized-programs.html#s11.8.5 Font packages must not provide alias names for the fonts they include which collide with alias names already in use by fonts already packaged. Font packages must not provide fonts with the same XLFD registry name as another font already packaged. Even the classic “knuthian” TeX license and its children have similar requirements. Please understand that this requirement makes sense. However, OFL's drafters seem to think font designers are copyright-ignorant or just plain stupid enough to think RFNs are a big selling point. How many designers have you been in touch with before making these very aggressive statements? Not exactly the best way to engage with them and show them the potential of a collaborative approach. As you know the OFL has been presented at AtypI and we have received constructive feedback from the design community. Seriously, do you really think we'd add such a clause if it wasn't needed? I feel Condition 3 can be used in a way that follows the DFSG, but I continue to ask for its removal. Great to hear that you think it clause 3 can be DFSG-compliant. As for the removal, have you read Victor Gaultney's answer on this? To quote him on OFL-discuss: I do understand your point, and even agree that trademark should be enough. But in practice it's not. RFN is a critical feature of the OFL, and does not stop designers from declaring their trademarks in addition to protecting the name through RFN. So people can fully use both. I'm happy to note that I think OFL 1.1 is the first version that *can* be used for software that would follow the DFSG. Glad to hear your opinion on the DFSG-compliance of
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:02:36 +0100 Nicolas Spalinger wrote: [...] A branch is something different by definition and it should identify itself as such and not masquerade itself as something else to the user. The font name protection is a key feature of the OFL to guaranty artistic integrity to a font designer and actually make him consider releasing his work under a free license. Please note that, if you introduce restrictions big enough to please potential adopters, you are defeating your own purpose, because works under the adopted license are not free anymore... As a consequence, the noble goal of persuading people to release their works under a free license cannot justify the introduction of any kind of restrictions into the license. This is a general comment: I'm going to analyze the license in detail below... Various other project-specific font licenses have a similar mechanism and are currently well-accepted in Debian. I'm sure you will agree that we don't want a new license for every font in the archive and that a common community-validated font-specific license that is readable and easy to use is much better. While we are at fighting license proliferation, I would really like to *not* have font-specific licenses at all... Especially GPL-incompatible ones... :-( Anyway, let's go on and analyze the OFL v1.1 (If compatibility and configuration means breaking the user's documents and ignoring the requirements for artistic integrity the vast majority of designers have, then this is not exactly what I'd call maintainership and good relationships with upstream) It could even mean *fixing* the user's documents. After all, every time a Debian package is modified, the user's system is at stance: it could be broken by the upgrade, but it could be fixed or enhanced instead! At the end of the day, this is how Free Software operates: give everyone the freedom to (use, study, copy, redistribute, and) modify things as he/she sees fit. Breaking systems is never forbidden, because otherwise systems could not even be fixed or enhanced (you cannot legally define breaking, fixing, and enhancing, as they mostly depend on the point of view!). [...] OK, license comments follow. --- SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1 - 26 February 2007 --- [...] 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. As I already pointed out back in December[1], when discussing OFL v1.1review2 on debian-legal, this restriction does *not* fail the DFSG (because DFSG#1 only requires that software can be sold as a part of an aggregate, which is allowed by clause 2 below...), but is moot, as it can be circumvented by simply bundling the Font Software with a stupid 2-byte script... I again suggest to drop such a useless restriction. [1] see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00061.html and the thread that followed 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy contains the above copyright notice and this license. [...] 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the primary font name as presented to the users. Back in December, my conclusion on this clause (which is unchanged with respect to OFL v1.1review2) was that this restriction complies with the DFSG, *if* the Reserved Font Names (for the work under consideration) are only names used in previous versions of the work. This is so, because DFSG#4 states, in part: | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or | version number from the original software. and hence the only names that can be forbidden for derivative works, while complying with the DFSG, are the names of ancestor versions of the work. Having this clause in the license, without another clause stating that *only* names of previous versions of the work are eligible for specification as Reserved Font Name, is suboptimal, because it makes the OFL a check-case-by-case license: works released under the terms of the OFL v1.1 comply with DFSG, *only* if an additional condition is satisfied. [...] 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and must not be distributed under any other license. As already pointed out back in December, this can become extremely tricky if one wants to dual-license a work (especially if a similar only-me clause is found in the other license!). How can a redistributor comply with both licenses, while distributing the dual-licensed work? [...] -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
Christian Perrier wrote: [...] Quoting Nicolas Spalinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Hi everyone, I think this will be of interest to the Debian maintainers on this list. The Open Font License 1.1 is now released. What do the debian-legal people think about it? I have not followed discussions closely but the very few I have seen showed at least some debate. I guess that we now should know whether OFL licensed material would be considered as DFSG compliant or not. That will definitely determine if we, Debian font packages maintainers, encourage font authors to adopt OFL or not. Hi Christian, Thanks for your forward. I was going to submit the new version of the OFL to debian-legal and other lists today. For the convenience of the debian-legal reviewers, I'm attaching the text of the revised OFL 1.1 and the corresponding updated FAQ. Along with a diff of the changes between 1.0 and 1.1 and a explanation of these changes. I was away for some time with almost no bandwidth and more recently I was way too busy to follow up earlier threads discussing the OFL but we have taken into account the community feedback and we're fairly confident that the remaining concerns are now properly addressed. The discussion to revise the license has been going on mainly via the OFL-discuss mailing-list. See this thread for example for MJ Ray's review and Victor Gaultney's detailed answers: http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000117.html http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000120.html and another answer to Jon Phillips' queries: http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000127.html As you can see, we have worked on engaging all the relevant people throughout the communities of both Free Software and Type design: http://wiki.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Fonts/Configuration http://live.gnome.org/Boston2006/TextLayout/OFL http://scripts.sil.org/OFL#809bffa7-f92f07b9 Many other key reviewers including Jim Gettys, Raph Levien, Simos Xenitellis and Denis Jacquerye have explained that the name change requirement is a desirable feature for fonts and that so-called ready-to-eat derivatives are problematic. A branch is something different by definition and it should identify itself as such and not masquerade itself as something else to the user. The font name protection is a key feature of the OFL to guaranty artistic integrity to a font designer and actually make him consider releasing his work under a free license. Various other project-specific font licenses have a similar mechanism and are currently well-accepted in Debian. I'm sure you will agree that we don't want a new license for every font in the archive and that a common community-validated font-specific license that is readable and easy to use is much better. (If compatibility and configuration means breaking the user's documents and ignoring the requirements for artistic integrity the vast majority of designers have, then this is not exactly what I'd call maintainership and good relationships with upstream) The ftp-masters *have decided in favor of the OFL 1.0* and so we already have various quality open fonts in main (like Gentium, Charis SIL, Doulos SIL, Abyssinica SIL, Linux Libertine) with various ITPs underway (Inconsolata, Padauk, Andika SIL, a whole range of font projects by George Williams to experiment with fontforge, GFS Didot, GFS Olga, GFS Porson, OldStandard). An increasing number of these font projects are now providing sources! The body of open fonts is growing (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL_fonts) and this new version should only improve things and allow us to engage more designers in releasing their work under a free license. So with all this in mind, let us know how you feel about the OFL 1.1. The FAQ can be updated in due course to clarify certain aspects of using the license. PS: please note that Nicolas Spalinger has proposed a talk about OFL at Debconf7. Yep, I also intend to talk - and encourage discussion within the Debian community - about the wider context of open fonts - granted, a community-recognized font-specific license is a key aspect - but the font design toolkit, font maintainership best practices and related issues, etc are also very important. Lots of great things ahead for the Lenny dev cycle. Be aware that the author of Fontforge (the reference free software font design tool) is now planning the integration of the OFL to make it even easier for designers to free their fonts: http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/uitranslationnotes.html#More The next step is to launch the unifont.org-coordinated go for OFL campaign (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl) with support from major community bodies to encourage more designers to release their fonts under a free license for the whole free desktop to benefit. -- Nicolas Spalinger http://scripts.sil.org http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-fonts/ OLD This Font Software is Copyright (c) dates, copyright
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:37:18 +0100 Christian Perrier wrote: (please keep the crossposting. [...] Done. Quoting Nicolas Spalinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Hi everyone, I think this will be of interest to the Debian maintainers on this list. The Open Font License 1.1 is now released. What do the debian-legal people think about it? I have not followed discussions closely but the very few I have seen showed at least some debate. The last thread on the OFL that I remember starts here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00061.html It was about the OFL 1.1review2. My conclusion was that works solely released under the terms of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the work. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00168.html I guess that we now should know whether OFL licensed material would be considered as DFSG compliant or not. That will definitely determine if we, Debian font packages maintainers, encourage font authors to adopt OFL or not. I see that the full license text has been posted to debian-legal for review. I'll try to find the time to analyze it soon... -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp9WmD2lh0Hg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many other key reviewers [namedrops] explained that the name change requirement is a desirable feature for fonts and that so-called ready-to-eat derivatives are problematic. A branch is something different by definition and it should identify itself as such and not masquerade itself as something else to the user. As explained repeatedly, users should not have to configure font substitution for every new font and especially should not have to configure gentium.deb (a simple packaging of gentium, not a font branch) as a substitute for gentium! The font name protection is a key feature of the OFL to guaranty artistic integrity to a font designer and actually make him consider releasing his work under a free license. The fundamental problem is that OFL attempts to use copyright instead of other laws (trademarks, fraud, moral rights, and so on). In common with many other licences doing similar things, OFL needs to be used carefully to avoid trampling on the four freedoms. Worse, it's a false sense of security for font designers. OFL does nothing to stop an unrelated font calling itself the Reserved Font Name (because it cannot do anything about it). Names should be controlled by trademark if one feels strongly enough to hinder other fonts under that name. However, OFL's drafters seem to think font designers are copyright-ignorant or just plain stupid enough to think RFNs are a big selling point. I feel Condition 3 can be used in a way that follows the DFSG, but I continue to ask for its removal. I'm happy to note that I think OFL 1.1 is the first version that *can* be used for software that would follow the DFSG. [...] The ftp-masters *have decided in favor of the OFL 1.0* and so we already have various quality open fonts in main (like Gentium, [...] When? Did ftpmaster get asked to consider the problems with OFL 1.0? This sort of unsubstantiated claim has been made repeatedly, in the press, at conferences and elsewhere. It's apparently based only on the acceptance of a few packages. That says little itself: far more obviously DFSG-busting licences have snuck into debian in the past! Furthermore, I held back from filing the bug reports against ttf-gentium and others because I thought OFL 1.1 was heading the right way and I didn't want to cause ftpmaster unnecessary work. I left a [EMAIL PROTECTED] ticket dangling while OFL 1.1 was created, instead of pushing for OFL to be removed from their lists. I feel it is *very* bad behaviour to now punish giving OFL time like this. 1.0 was not perfect. Stop claiming it was. Irritated, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Open Font License 1.1 Released
(please keep the crossposting. [EMAIL PROTECTED] does not use an opened posting policy but I'll temporarily open the policy to avoid annoying people who are not subscribed. If you post in the meantime, you might get a notification of post being sent for moderation, which I will do later. I just can't open the list right now) Quoting Nicolas Spalinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Hi everyone, I think this will be of interest to the Debian maintainers on this list. The Open Font License 1.1 is now released. What do the debian-legal people think about it? I have not followed discussions closely but the very few I have seen showed at least some debate. I guess that we now should know whether OFL licensed material would be considered as DFSG compliant or not. That will definitely determine if we, Debian font packages maintainers, encourage font authors to adopt OFL or not. PS: please note that Nicolas Spalinger has proposed a talk about OFL at Debconf7. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On 12/11/06 14:02, Nick Phillips wrote: On 12/12/2006, at 10:50 AM, Francesco Poli wrote: The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name. At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up to the level it makes finding a non-reserved name nearly impossible. Am I the only one who begins to see DFSG#4 as a slippery slope? Am I the only one who remembers what the G stands for? Here here! Some of these pseudo-legal philosophical debates on the interpretations of the DFSG completely miss the strategic nature of certain aspects of the free software movement. In this case; that fonts are particularly hairy and need strange requirements to be useful to the free software movement. Happy hacking, Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:43:57 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the original software is acceptable. I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Because all of the Reserved Font Names will have been used for the font in the ancestor version tree of the software somewhere, they are all the name of the original software - at different points in its development. Right, if that's guaranteed, then it should be a DFSG-free restriction. Actually, no, it does *not* seem to be guaranteed. Can that ever be not the case (a Reserved Font Name sneaking in somehow)? Unfortunately, it seems that any arbitrary name can be reserved. See the following messages elsewhere in this same thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00164.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00165.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00168.html That's why I think this is a check-on-a-case-by-case-basis license. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpk7lh4z2i5v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Gervase Markham wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction. It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's not a freeness issue, let's focus on more important stuff (if there is any). Actually, DFSG#4 states, in part: | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or | version number from the original software. This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the original software is acceptable. I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Because all of the Reserved Font Names will have been used for the font in the ancestor version tree of the software somewhere, they are all the name of the original software - at different points in its development. Right, if that's guaranteed, then it should be a DFSG-free restriction. Can that ever be not the case (a Reserved Font Name sneaking in somehow)? -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Terry Hancock wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 + MJ Ray wrote: This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the original software is acceptable. I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. Surely requiring you not to use trademarked names is par for the course with font licenses? I think this is the *same* as the DFSG allowing name-change requirements. In fact, it sounds like they are doing you a service by providing a list of trademarked names that would be infringing. Don't try to enforce trademarks using copyright law; it's almost always non-free. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In summary, can we conclude that works solely released under the terms of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the work? You two obviously do, but I keep disagreeing from this extensive interpretation of DFSG #4. How does one interpret DFSG #4 in order to conclude that works solely under the OFL 1.1review2 whose Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions *don't* follow the DFSG? It seems a pretty obviously OK-for-main type to me. It's also surprising to have Marco d'Itri claiming something isn't free when I think it is. Puzzled, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In summary, can we conclude that works solely released under the terms of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the work? You two obviously do, but I keep disagreeing from this extensive interpretation of DFSG #4. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli wrote: The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name. At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up to the level it makes finding a non-reserved name nearly impossible. To make finding a non-reserved name nearly impossible, then the list of Reserved Font Names would need to include nearly all words or pronounceable phrases in the English and every other language - whereupon the font file would be too large to distribute with Debian anyway. It seems to me that the chances of an abuse of this mechanism on a scale which can actually cause problems are about at the level of the chances of someone abusing the language in the BSD licence about change and distribute - or whatever it was UWash did. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:38:07 + Gervase Markham wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name. At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up to the level it makes finding a non-reserved name nearly impossible. To make finding a non-reserved name nearly impossible, then the list of Reserved Font Names would need to include nearly all words or pronounceable phrases in the English and every other language - whereupon the font file would be too large to distribute with Debian anyway. Mine was simply an extrapolation example designed for making clear what kind of problems I had in mind. OK, maybe the word easily was a bad choice, but anyway the important aspect was that reserving arbitrary names (I mean: that were never used in previous versions of the work) does not comply with DFSG#4. That was the point I was trying to make. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpIKyUG5L8m8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Forbidding reuse of a the name of the original software is OK, forbidding an arbitrary name is not. Don't you agree with me that this goes beyond what is allowed (again, as a compromise!) by DFSG#4 ? Please don't ask questions in the negative. I agree that forbidding arbitrary names is not following the DFSG, so packagers must watch for that OFL clause being used in that way. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:21:21 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Forbidding reuse of a the name of the original software is OK, forbidding an arbitrary name is not. Don't you agree with me that this goes beyond what is allowed (again, as a compromise!) by DFSG#4 ? Please don't ask questions in the negative. Sorry. I didn't mean to be unpolite. I agree that forbidding arbitrary names is not following the DFSG, so packagers must watch for that OFL clause being used in that way. OK, so this license is currently a check-on-case-by-case one. If the license drafters cannot be persuaded to enhance this clause (so that the license can only be used in a DFSG-free manner), then each and every case will have to be checked... It will be boring, but better than an unconditionally non-free license, anyway... In summary, can we conclude that works solely released under the terms of SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2, are DFSG-free, *if* their Reserved Font Names are only names used in previous versions of the work? -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpvQHX2fSwa6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name. At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up to the level it makes finding a non-reserved name nearly impossible. I apologise in that case, for it was not my intention. It can be an arbitrary restriction on naming, as recently clarified on ofl-discuss. http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000120.html This use of a copyright licence to try to enforce a trademark is why I think every packager of OFL'd software must beware this potential hole. I know it's not good, but it's far better than the last OFL version. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:32:24 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name. At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up to the level it makes finding a non-reserved name nearly impossible. I apologise in that case, for it was not my intention. It can be an arbitrary restriction on naming, as recently clarified on ofl-discuss. http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000120.html Quoting from the message (by Victor Gaultney) that you cite: | The license does not restrict what can be a RFN. If you have a font | called 'foo', you can declare 'bar' as a RFN, though I can't think | of may reasons to do that. If this is the correct interpretation of the license, then I don't think this kind of restriction is allowed by DFSG#4, which states, in part: | The license may require derived works to carry a different name ^^ | or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. | The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, | source or binary, from being modified.) Forbidding reuse of a the name of the original software is OK, forbidding an arbitrary name is not. Don't you agree with me that this goes beyond what is allowed (again, as a compromise!) by DFSG#4 ? -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpQUjQn0yMYM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli wrote: I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the Font Software. Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my concerns go away? There is no such clause. What sort of abuse do you think this loophole enables? After all, even if there was such a clause, I could make 200 trivially different versions of the font, each one from the next and each with a name I wished to reserve. But what would be the point? As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. Do you have a proposed definition? What sort of things do you suggest some people might consider documents and others not? I don't have one, since I think that clearly drawing lines to tell various software categories apart is really hard. This discussion has showed up many times on debian-legal, at least since the GFDL times (I think it was 2002 or 2003): I believe there are no clearcut boundaries between documents, programs, images, audio/video works, and so forth. They can be classified in most cases, but the boundaries are always blurred. Hence defining what a document is, turns out to be hard. Given that we clearly need an exception for documents to avoid the problem which led to the GPL font exception, if you can't suggest alternative wording, I'm not really sure how to proceed. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Gervase Markham wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the Font Software. Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my concerns go away? There is no such clause. What sort of abuse do you think this loophole enables? After all, even if there was such a clause, I could make 200 trivially different versions of the font, each one from the next and each with a name I wished to reserve. But what would be the point? It doesn't seem like a showtopper to me, but if the license is being actively reviewed, then adding a limitation to the Reserved Font Names indicating that they must have been a former name for the font, seems harmless. After all, you point out yourself that it doesn't put a hard limit on the names used (it might be regarded as a soft limit, because it requires a 'release dance' for each one added to the list, which probably presents no problem for honest applications, but might retard abuse). I am put in mind of the domain sitter example: people staking out claims on domain names. It'd be a shame to repeat that. As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. Do you have a proposed definition? What sort of things do you suggest some people might consider documents and others not? I don't have one, since I think that clearly drawing lines to tell various software categories apart is really hard. This discussion has showed up many times on debian-legal, at least since the GFDL times (I think it was 2002 or 2003): I believe there are no clearcut boundaries between documents, programs, images, audio/video works, and so forth. They can be classified in most cases, but the boundaries are always blurred. Hence defining what a document is, turns out to be hard. But ISTM that it's irrelevant. Since embedding and bundling are also allowed, it really doesn't make any difference where you draw the line. If you define document in the common-sense way it is used in the publishing industry (something you can print in a hardcopy or a bit more broadly, something which can be displayed on screen), then the document exemption protects those uses, while it does not protect software which includes the font. Instead, the bundling and embedding exemption would apply. Which has the same effect. OTOH, if we adopt the sort of extremely broad definition of document that you propose, then the document exemption applies to both. Which, of course, has exactly the same effect. So who cares how narrowly document is defined? There is one particular case which the software embedding and bundling exemptions might not apply to, and that is hardcopy documents and the files that are used to make them (e.g. PDF or ODF). Adding a document exemption makes it clear that those uses are *also* exempted, in essentially the same way as software which bundles or embeds the font. I don't really see how that could be clearer. ISTM, the document exemption *closes* a loophole, rather than opening one, ensuring user freedoms that might not otherwise be covered. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:21:19 + Gervase Markham wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the Font Software. Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my concerns go away? There is no such clause. What sort of abuse do you think this loophole enables? After all, even if there was such a clause, I could make 200 trivially different versions of the font, each one from the next and each with a name I wished to reserve. But what would be the point? The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name. At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up to the level it makes finding a non-reserved name nearly impossible. The license states: | Copyright (c) dates, Copyright Holder (URL|email), | with Reserved Font Name Reserved Font Name. All Rights Reserved. | Copyright (c) dates, additional Copyright Holder (URL|email), | with Reserved Font Name additional Reserved Font Name. All Rights | Reserved. [...] | 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font | Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the | corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the | primary font name as presented to the users. The Copyright notice templates seem to imply that each copyright holder gets the right to veto *one* Font Name. On the other hand | Reserved Font Name refers to the Font Software name as seen by users | and any other names as specified after the copyright statement. could be interpreted as permitting more than one Reserved Font Name per copyright statement. Am I the only one who begins to see DFSG#4 as a slippery slope? [...] Given that we clearly need an exception for documents to avoid the problem which led to the GPL font exception, if you can't suggest alternative wording, I'm not really sure how to proceed. Nor do I, but I felt that I should point out the vagueness anyway. Maybe someone else can suggest a solution (or at least a way to enhance things a bit)... -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpoqBSNRmb9R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On 12/12/2006, at 10:50 AM, Francesco Poli wrote: The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name. At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can reserve an arbitrary list of Font Names, the restriction can easily grow up to the level it makes finding a non-reserved name nearly impossible. Am I the only one who begins to see DFSG#4 as a slippery slope? Am I the only one who remembers what the G stands for? Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli wrote: Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction. It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's not a freeness issue, let's focus on more important stuff (if there is any). Actually, DFSG#4 states, in part: | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or | version number from the original software. This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the original software is acceptable. I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Because all of the Reserved Font Names will have been used for the font in the ancestor version tree of the software somewhere, they are all the name of the original software - at different points in its development. I agree that trademark law is a better venue for this sort of restriction, and I have argued as much on the OFL list. But I don't think this quirk makes the license non-free. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. [...] As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. Do you have a proposed definition? What sort of things do you suggest some people might consider documents and others not? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:11:11 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Is this kind of /cumulative/ name-change requirement allowed by DFSG#4? We need copyright permission for each contributing work, so I can't see how we allow DFSG4 and not allow this. Ah, I see what you mean. OK, so it seems that DFSG#4 allows this, even though I'm not particularly happy that it does... However, it is a stupid condition, because it does nothing to stop an unrelated font calling itself MyFont, ChangedFont or EnhanceFont. Agreed, definitely. Names should be controlled by trademark if one feels strongly enough Indeed (and in a DFSG-free manner, please!). -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpnWXOzhp7ID.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:02:55 +0800 Gervase Markham wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Actually, DFSG#4 states, in part: | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or | version number from the original software. This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the original software is acceptable. I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Because all of the Reserved Font Names will have been used for the font in the ancestor version tree of the software somewhere, they are all the name of the original software - at different points in its development. I probably missed where the license makes sure that Reserved Font Names can only become such by being names used in some ancestor version of the Font Software. Could you please elaborate and show the relevant clauses, so that my concerns go away? [...] As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. Do you have a proposed definition? What sort of things do you suggest some people might consider documents and others not? I don't have one, since I think that clearly drawing lines to tell various software categories apart is really hard. This discussion has showed up many times on debian-legal, at least since the GFDL times (I think it was 2002 or 2003): I believe there are no clearcut boundaries between documents, programs, images, audio/video works, and so forth. They can be classified in most cases, but the boundaries are always blurred. Hence defining what a document is, turns out to be hard. P.S.: please reply to the list only, as I didn't asked to be placed in the To: (or Cc:) field... thanks. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpTjIzENEHra.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Gervase Markham wrote: But the names aren't required to be trademarked. That sentence is nonsense in legal terms: there is no such thing as trademarking a name. A name becomes a trademark when you use it as one. Putting it in a list of reserved font names is one way of doing that. I think you are confusing the idea with *registering* a trademark, which is an assurance of trademark protection (it provides a formal means of avoiding conflict and establishing precedence), but it isn't required for trademark protection. In fact, this is exactly like post-1978 US copyright law (and the Berne Convention, IIRC): copyright protection applies from the moment of creation. Registration is a formality, which may make it easier to defend a copyright, but does not change the copyright status. Trademark is similar. We have separate marks for an (unregistered) trademark TM and a registered one (R). It's definitely a restriction over and above trademark law. (I don't think it makes the license non-free, though.) So, in fact, it is NOT a restriction over and above trademark law. Of course, IANAL, but I'm pretty darned certain of this. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] Just because it's fun to argue, though [...] I think it's extremely unfunny to have off-topic angels-on-pinhead debates looping away. If anything on-topic comes out of this subthread, please summarise it in a new subthread. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Eugene cannot use the name ChangedFont, because it's the name of the work he's modifying - neither can Eugene use the name MyFont, because it's the name of the work ChangedFont is based on - Eugene calls his font EnhancedFont * now there are three Reserved Font Names: MyFont, ChangedFont, and EnhancedFont Is this what you mean? As far as I can tell, yes. Is this kind of /cumulative/ name-change requirement allowed by DFSG#4? We need copyright permission for each contributing work, so I can't see how we allow DFSG4 and not allow this. However, it is a stupid condition, because it does nothing to stop an unrelated font calling itself MyFont, ChangedFont or EnhanceFont. Names should be controlled by trademark if one feels strongly enough to make things under that name non-free. At least putting it in a copyright licence makes the name-change requirement obvious, stopping a submarine trademark attack. I think we just need to watch out for people trying to exploit this rename clause to grab unlimited RFNs. I strongly dislike check-on-a-case-by-case-basis licenses: could the clause be narrowed down, so that we are sure it can only be used in DFSG-free manners? I'll ask. But, when we pass them both on, are we complying with the OFL, that explicitly states that the Font Software [...] may not be distributed under any other license? Or are we in violation? Aren't we distributing under whatever other licence, but passing on the offer of the OFL? Of course, I see what you mean if the other licence also has an only-me clause, it gets muddy. :-/ Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006 [...] 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. This restriction does *not* fail the DFSG (because DFSG#1 only requires that software can be sold as a part of an aggregate, which is allowed by clause 2 below...), but is, well, moot. I agree it's a stupid restriction. 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s) unless [...] I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. I see what you mean, but if each RFN comes from one font, then all can be forbidden while still following DFSG, thanks to the stack of copyright licences required. I think we just need to watch out for people trying to exploit this rename clause to grab unlimited RFNs. [...] 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be distributed under any other license. Does this interfere with dual licensing? I don't think so. The copyright holder is not bound by OFL, so could offer it under dual licences. If those are public licences, we can pass them both on. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. [...] As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word ``document'' is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. Indeed. I'll report back to ofl-discuss shortly. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:36:18 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006 [...] [...] 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s) unless [...] I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. I see what you mean, but if each RFN comes from one font, then all can be forbidden while still following DFSG, thanks to the stack of copyright licences required. IIUC, you are basically saying that everything is fine *as long as* each Reserved Font Name has been used for one previous version of the Font Software. For instance: * MyFont is released by Mark Fontdesigner under this license * Chuck Fontmodifier takes MyFont and creates a modified version - Chuck releases his modified font under this license, with the name ChangedFont * Eugene Fontenhancer further modifies ChangedFont and releases the result under this same license - Eugene cannot use the name ChangedFont, because it's the name of the work he's modifying - neither can Eugene use the name MyFont, because it's the name of the work ChangedFont is based on - Eugene calls his font EnhancedFont * now there are three Reserved Font Names: MyFont, ChangedFont, and EnhancedFont Is this what you mean? Is this kind of /cumulative/ name-change requirement allowed by DFSG#4? I think we just need to watch out for people trying to exploit this rename clause to grab unlimited RFNs. I strongly dislike check-on-a-case-by-case-basis licenses: could the clause be narrowed down, so that we are sure it can only be used in DFSG-free manners? [...] 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be distributed under any other license. Does this interfere with dual licensing? I don't think so. The copyright holder is not bound by OFL, so could offer it under dual licences. If those are public licences, we can pass them both on. But, when we pass them both on, are we complying with the OFL, that explicitly states that the Font Software [...] may not be distributed under any other license? Or are we in violation? -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpwdKjXiIvxv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Andrew Donnellan wrote: I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this definitely disallows it. Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new font (and not much else beyond that). This is of course a bad thing, but it can be said of virtually any copyleft license that doesn't provide an explicit conversion exemption. (IIRC, you can't combine MPL and GPL programs, either, unless you get explicit permission to relicense one or the other of them -- this doesn't affect bundling such programs into a distribution, though). As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. This is a standard exemption for font software. It recognizes that including a font in a document (e.g. a PDF or Postscript) file does not cause the license to bind the document. Yes. This is why, for example, the GPL is a bad font license, because if read technically, it would force all documents written with it to be released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they usually apply a similar additional exemption. Yes, the FSF has their font exemption. For font users, I would argue that document is a well-known term. It means you can embed the font in documents that use it. However, let's say that I write a GPL program, including the font in it somehow. How, exactly? The copyleft on the font doesn't bind the program for any use I can imagine. Not because of the document exemption, but because of this: can be bundled, embedded, redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that the font names of derivative works are changed. Note that the use of font names implies that the derivative works are fonts (i.e. that embedding or bundling does not constitute 'derivation' under the license). That may be poor wording (because 'derivation' has a legal meaning in its own right), but ISTM that the intent is clearly that only another font can be considered a 'derivative work' of the font. Any other use is 'bundling' or 'embedding'. I can see where that could be confusing coming from first-principles, but understanding how fonts are used and what they are, it seems quite clear. It is very difficult to imagine a GPL program that incorporates a font in any way other than as a description of the appearance of text to be generated by the program. In that use, the font is an intact bundled piece of data, processed by the program (which also means the GPL's copyleft doesn't bind it, either), and not a part of the program. What the OFL would require, however, is that if the font is modified, the OFL must apply to the result, and the name of the font must be changed. I then proceed to copy it into OOo Writer. How, exactly? How do you copy a program into OOo Writer? Wait. Do you mean into an OOo Writer document (ODF) or into the source code for OOo Writer? Either way, I'm still not sure what you mean by this, or why you think it matters. (?) Does this therefore mean that I have an exemption from the copyleft? So at this point we're, what, talking about a printable document containing the source code to a GPL program, represented in an OFL font? Then, yes, you're exempt from the copyleft on the font. Or we're talking about a program derived from a GPL program which happens to embed or bundle an OFL font. In which case, still, yes you are exempt from the OFL copyleft (it never would've applied in the first place, there's no need for an explicit exemption). Effectively, fonts are content-like software objects, not program-like. 'Document' is not defined. Technically it could be anything text-like, including source code. Yes, certainly a document can contain source code. Or a shopping list. Or a novel. I don't see how that's relevant to the question, though. (?) What it says is that the font's license doesn't bind the document. This is what most people would assume from a common-sense perspective, but it needs to be made explicit for legal reasons. Legally it could be more difficult. How? This seems like a very routine usage to me, and I can't see where any confusion arises. Certainly there are more arbitrary uses of the word document, but it has a specific meaning in publishing (and therefore with respect to fonts). Certainly, it seems unlikely that document would have any *narrower* definition than the one that applies in publishing. Considering broader meanings used in a software context, it could mean any file or package. But that's pretty much summed up with being bundled or embedded in any software, so the effect is the same. In fact, to the degree that document is a subset of any software it might even be regarded as a redundant exemption (but as it is the most important case, it seems reasonable to be explicit). There's also the matter of printed (hardcopy) documents, which would include the font (or the output of the font software from a certain
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On 12/8/06, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan wrote: I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this definitely disallows it. Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new font (and not much else beyond that). This is of course a bad thing, but it can be said of virtually any copyleft license that doesn't provide an explicit conversion exemption. (IIRC, you can't combine MPL and GPL programs, either, unless you get explicit permission to relicense one or the other of them -- this doesn't affect bundling such programs into a distribution, though). True. As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. This is a standard exemption for font software. It recognizes that including a font in a document (e.g. a PDF or Postscript) file does not cause the license to bind the document. Yes. This is why, for example, the GPL is a bad font license, because if read technically, it would force all documents written with it to be released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they usually apply a similar additional exemption. Yes, the FSF has their font exemption. For font users, I would argue that document is a well-known term. It means you can embed the font in documents that use it. However, let's say that I write a GPL program, including the font in it somehow. How, exactly? The copyleft on the font doesn't bind the program for any use I can imagine. Not because of the document exemption, but because of this: can be bundled, embedded, redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that the font names of derivative works are changed. Sorry, I'll change the example - a GPL font. Note that the use of font names implies that the derivative works are fonts (i.e. that embedding or bundling does not constitute 'derivation' under the license). That may be poor wording (because 'derivation' has a legal meaning in its own right), but ISTM that the intent is clearly that only another font can be considered a 'derivative work' of the font. Any other use is 'bundling' or 'embedding'. I can see where that could be confusing coming from first-principles, but understanding how fonts are used and what they are, it seems quite clear. It is very difficult to imagine a GPL program that incorporates a font in any way other than as a description of the appearance of text to be generated by the program. In that use, the font is an intact bundled piece of data, processed by the program (which also means the GPL's copyleft doesn't bind it, either), and not a part of the program. What the OFL would require, however, is that if the font is modified, the OFL must apply to the result, and the name of the font must be changed. I then proceed to copy it into OOo Writer. How, exactly? How do you copy a program into OOo Writer? You copy it by selecting the source code in your text editor, selecting the Copy option and switching to OOo and pressing pasting. Wait. Do you mean into an OOo Writer document (ODF) or into the source code for OOo Writer? ODF. Does this now give me an exemption? Does that exemption last after I take the source and compile it with FontForge or similar? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Andrew Donnellan wrote: Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new font (and not much else beyond that). True. The copyleft on the font doesn't bind the program for any use I can imagine. Not because of the document exemption, but because of this: can be bundled, embedded, redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that the font names of derivative works are changed. Sorry, I'll change the example - a GPL font. Can't combine them. All copyleft licenses have this incompatibility problem, unless they provide some explicit conversion clause. Debian has never had a requirement that licenses be GPL compatible, AFAIK. I then proceed to copy it into OOo Writer. How, exactly? How do you copy a program into OOo Writer? You copy it by selecting the source code in your text editor, selecting the Copy option and switching to OOo and pressing pasting. Okay, so it's the source code of a GPL font? Doesn't matter. The point is that it's a text document, now represented with a particular font, because of the use of a word processor. The content of the document is irrelevant. No document's content is bound simply because the font is embedded in it. That's what the document exemption is all about. Does this now give me an exemption? Does that exemption last after I take the source and compile it with FontForge or similar? Of course. The resulting font is a derivative of your GPL font. After compilation, it contains none of the OFL font, so it's pretty easy to see that it isn't in any way a 'derivative' of the OFL font. In fact, of course, there's probably no legal way that it could be made binding in that circumstance. So the document exemption may not even be relevant. But even if it were possible, the exemption makes it clear that no binding to the OFL license occurs. More importantly, the OFL license makes it clear that your ODF document containing the source code isn't bound by the OFL either (even though it 'embeds' an OFL-licensed font). Of course, the OFL font *within* the ODF document *is* still under the OFL license. So far, this seems clearcut to me. Just because it's fun to argue, though, I'll throw a wild one at you: What if the programming language for the program actually uses ODF as source code (instead of plain text), and the choice of font is significant (e.g. variable names in Helvetica have integer type, while names in Times Roman have floating point type, and StayPuft variables are strings?) Forcing a name-change on the font could break the build. However, unless the language uses the primary font name as presented to the users to distinguish fonts (a very unwise design decision), the problem can be avoided. Then, of course, the document *is* the source code, not merely a combination of the source code with formatting. Even in this case, though, the font expressly says it can't affect the license of the program (because it's the document). Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Does the new draft available at http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsiid=OFL_review_sc=1#db4033e4-5239a507 let software follow the DFSG? There's some discussion at http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000103.html and http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-November/94.html and the licence itself says: Copyright (c) dates, Copyright Holder (URL|email), with Reserved Font Name Reserved Font Name. All Rights Reserved. Copyright (c) dates, additional Copyright Holder (URL|email), with Reserved Font Name additional Reserved Font Name. All Rights Reserved. This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. This license is copied below, and is also available with a FAQ at: http://scripts.sil.org/OFL --- SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006 --- PREAMBLE The goals of the Open Font License (OFL) are to stimulate worldwide development of collaborative font projects, to support the font creation efforts of academic and linguistic communities, and to provide a free and open framework in which fonts may be shared and improved in partnership with others. The OFL allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. The fonts, including any derivative works, can be bundled, embedded, redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that the font names of derivative works are changed. The fonts and derivatives, however, cannot be released under any other type of license. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives. DEFINITIONS Font Software refers to the set of files released by the Copyright Holder(s) under this license and clearly marked as such. This may include source files, build scripts and documentation. Reserved Font Name refers to the Font Software name as seen by users and any other names as specified after the copyright statement. Original Version refers to the collection of Font Software components as distributed by the Copyright Holder(s). Modified Version refers to any derivative made by adding to, deleting, or substituting -- in part or in whole -- any of the components of the Original Version, by changing formats or by porting the Font Software to a new environment. Author refers to any designer, engineer, programmer, technical writer or other person who contributed to the Font Software. PERMISSION CONDITIONS Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy, merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and unmodified copies of the Font Software, subject to the following conditions: 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy contains the above copyright notice and this license. These can be included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or in the appropriate machine-readable metadata fields within text or binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user. 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the primary font name as presented to the users. 4) The name(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) or the Author(s) of the Font Software shall not be used to promote, endorse or advertise any Modified Version, except to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) and the Author(s) or with their explicit written permission. 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be distributed under any other license. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. TERMINATION This license becomes null and void if any of the above conditions are not met. DISCLAIMER THE FONT SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR OTHER RIGHT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE FONT SOFTWARE OR FROM OTHER DEALINGS IN THE FONT SOFTWARE. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On 12/6/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. This license is copied below, and is also available with a FAQ at: http://scripts.sil.org/OFL --- SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006 --- PREAMBLE The goals of the Open Font License (OFL) are to stimulate worldwide development of collaborative font projects, to support the font creation efforts of academic and linguistic communities, and to provide a free and open framework in which fonts may be shared and improved in partnership with others. The OFL allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. The fonts, including any derivative works, can be bundled, embedded, redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that the font names of derivative works are changed. The fonts and derivatives, however, cannot be released under any other type of license. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives. DEFINITIONS Font Software refers to the set of files released by the Copyright Holder(s) under this license and clearly marked as such. This may include source files, build scripts and documentation. Reserved Font Name refers to the Font Software name as seen by users and any other names as specified after the copyright statement. Original Version refers to the collection of Font Software components as distributed by the Copyright Holder(s). Modified Version refers to any derivative made by adding to, deleting, or substituting -- in part or in whole -- any of the components of the Original Version, by changing formats or by porting the Font Software to a new environment. Author refers to any designer, engineer, programmer, technical writer or other person who contributed to the Font Software. PERMISSION CONDITIONS Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy, merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and unmodified copies of the Font Software, subject to the following conditions: 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. Again, that stupid 'can't be sold by itself' clause. 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy contains the above copyright notice and this license. These can be included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or in the appropriate machine-readable metadata fields within text or binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user. 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the primary font name as presented to the users. I suppose this is a trademark-like restriction. 4) The name(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) or the Author(s) of the Font Software shall not be used to promote, endorse or advertise any Modified Version, except to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) and the Author(s) or with their explicit written permission. 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be distributed under any other license. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. This could, while being IMO free, be problematic - what is the definition of document? Also could things like Debian packaging be counted as 'adding to'? -- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 + MJ Ray wrote: Does the new draft available at http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsiid=OFL_review_sc=1#db4033e4-5239a507 let software follow the DFSG? [...] the licence itself says: [...] --- SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006 --- [...] 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. This restriction does *not* fail the DFSG (because DFSG#1 only requires that software can be sold as a part of an aggregate, which is allowed by clause 2 below...), but is, well, moot. I can prepare the following fantastic 2 byte long script: $ cat whoelse.sh w and sell the Font Software bundled with my unique `whoelse.sh'. Wow! Now that's what is called value-added software! ;-) Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction. 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy contains the above copyright notice and this license. [...] 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the primary font name as presented to the users. IMO, this restriction fails the DFSG, because it's a restriction on modification (DFSG#3) that goes beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4 (which, please remember, is already a compromise). Actually, DFSG#4 states, in part: | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or | version number from the original software. This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the original software is acceptable. I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. [...] 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be distributed under any other license. Does this interfere with dual licensing? The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. [...] As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpPUZESiCgUL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
Francesco Poli wrote: On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:21:05 + MJ Ray wrote: This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as the original software is acceptable. I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of Reserved Font Names goes beyond and is *not* DFSG-free. Surely requiring you not to use trademarked names is par for the course with font licenses? I think this is the *same* as the DFSG allowing name-change requirements. In fact, it sounds like they are doing you a service by providing a list of trademarked names that would be infringing. 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and may not be distributed under any other license. Does this interfere with dual licensing? Not following this. You can't dual license unless you are the copyright holder, and then you always can (unless you are party to an exclusive rights contract). Sounds like this is simply a (somewhat weak) copyleft. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. [...] As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. This is a standard exemption for font software. It recognizes that including a font in a document (e.g. a PDF or Postscript) file does not cause the license to bind the document. This is why, for example, the GPL is a bad font license, because if read technically, it would force all documents written with it to be released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they usually apply a similar additional exemption. For font users, I would argue that document is a well-known term. It means you can embed the font in documents that use it. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?
On 12/7/06, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this interfere with dual licensing? Not following this. You can't dual license unless you are the copyright holder, and then you always can (unless you are party to an exclusive rights contract). Sounds like this is simply a (somewhat weak) copyleft. I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this definitely disallows it. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. [...] As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, this is vague, as the word document is never defined and has no unambiguous meaning. This is a standard exemption for font software. It recognizes that including a font in a document (e.g. a PDF or Postscript) file does not cause the license to bind the document. Yes. This is why, for example, the GPL is a bad font license, because if read technically, it would force all documents written with it to be released under the GPL, too. When people do use the GPL for a font, they usually apply a similar additional exemption. Yes, the FSF has their font exemption. For font users, I would argue that document is a well-known term. It means you can embed the font in documents that use it. However, let's say that I write a GPL program, including the font in it somehow. I then proceed to copy it into OOo Writer. Does this therefore mean that I have an exemption from the copyleft? 'Document' is not defined. Technically it could be anything text-like, including source code. Legally it could be more difficult. -- Andrew Donnellan -- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) -- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs or misfeatures in the font? Not if they choose a different name. For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve correct rendering of docuements. You do, of course, mean preserve _incorrect_ rendering of documents ;-) Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
On Jan 30, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not if they choose a different name. For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve correct rendering of docuements. You do, of course, mean preserve _incorrect_ rendering of documents ;-) Yes. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: On Jan 30, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not if they choose a different name. For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve correct rendering of docuements. You do, of course, mean preserve _incorrect_ rendering of documents ;-) Yes. Well, let's say preserve rendering. A no-longer incorrect letter kerning might, via changes in line wrapping, lead to a completely incorrect page breaking, or figure placement, etc., and in consequence to a much less correct rendering. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs or misfeatures in the font? Not if they choose a different name. For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve correct rendering of docuements. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
[snip] On the matter of freeness of software licensed under the OFL: 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction applies to all references stored in the Font Software, such as the font menu name and other font description fields, which are used to differentiate the font from others. Non-free, because it prohibits accurate descriptive uses of the names, such as Foolio is based on Garamond. But the descriptive use is not what will appear in the font menu itself. The most appropriate place to make that clear is in the FONTLOG (or maybe the documentation). I can see that the use of font description fields can be ambigious in that sense. The OFL seeks to preserve a sane namespace and avoid conflicts resulting in documents not rendering as expected. Using a Reserved Font Name in a binary descriptive field of a .ttf will not technically collide with a font but may abuse the reputation of a designer. See FAQ entry 1.10 and 2.7 for more details : http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web Users who install derivatives (Modified Versions) on their systems should not see any of the original names (Reserved Font Names) in their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams, documents that refer to a particular font name, etc. Again, this is to ensure that users are not confused and do not mistake a font for another and so expect features only another derivative or the Standard Version can actually offer. (from OFL FAQ entry 2.8). -- Nicolas Spalinger http://scripts.sil.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:00:04 +0100 Nicolas Spalinger wrote: Users who install derivatives (Modified Versions) on their systems should not see any of the original names (Reserved Font Names) in their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams, documents that refer to a particular font name, etc. Again, this is to ensure that users are not confused and do not mistake a font for another and so expect features only another derivative or the Standard Version can actually offer. (from OFL FAQ entry 2.8). Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs or misfeatures in the font? If I cannot distribute an improved version of the font that still identifies itself as the original version in the font menus and so forth, the only way to have a bug in the font fixed (without modifying all the documents that already refer to that particular font name) is persuading the original copyright holder (of the font) to fix it. What if the original copyright holder is dead, or out of business, or uninterested, or unrespondant, or ... ? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpWe7pH6bQVK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: STIX Font License
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't agree that this clause is DFSG-free. It says that the name of an augmented font cannot *include* the term STIX or *any similar* term. That is significantly broader than what is allowed by DFGS#4, which states (in part): Your understanding of the DFSG is well beyond what so far has been its commonly accepted meaning. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
STIX Font License
I was approached a while ago to make a few comments on the stix font license and its possible suitability for inclusion in Debian. Obviously since I'm not an ftpmaster the comments were only my own opinion, but just in case the issue comes up again I've attached my analysis to this message along with the original license. Feel free to argue with either my analysis or point out additional issues in the license itself. Don Armstrong -- A one-question geek test. If you get the joke, you're a geek: Seen on a California license plate on a VW Beetle: 'FEATURE'... -- Joshua D. Wachs - Natural Intelligence, Inc. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu User License This proposed license represents the best efforts of the STI Pub Companies to achieve a compromise between the requirements of our contractual agreements with subcontractors and our desire for the widest possible dissemination of the STIX Fonts. The license is being provided at this time for your review (and comments). When the beta version of the STIX Fonts is available for download, this license will appear as a “click through” page that must be accepted in order to download a free copy of the fonts. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the STIX Fonts(tm) set accompanying this license (Fonts) and the associated documentation files (collectively, the “Font Software”), to reproduce and distribute the Font Software, including, without limitation, the rights to use, copy, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Font Software, and to permit persons to whom the Font Software is furnished to do so same, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. 2. The following copyright and trademark notice and these Terms and Conditions shall be included in all copies of one or more of the Font Software typefaces and any derivative work created therefrom as permitted under Section 3(b): Copyright (c) 2001-2005 by the STI Pub Companies, consisting of the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Mathematical Society, the American Physical Society, Elsevier, Inc., and The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. Portions copyright (c) 1998-2003 by MicroPress, Inc. Portions copyright (c) 2003 by Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. STIX FONTS(tm) is a trademark of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 3. The Font Software may not be modified or altered in any way, except that: (a) the Fonts may be converted from one format to another (e.g., from TrueType to Postscript), in which case the normal and reasonable distortion that occurs during such conversion shall be permitted; and (b) additional glyphs or characters may be added to the Fonts, so long as the base set of glyphs is not modified or removed. 4. If the Fonts are augmented pursuant to Section 3(b), the name used to denote the resulting fonts set shall not include the term “STIX” or any similar term, and any distribution or sale of the resulting fonts set must be free of charge unless the work is distributed or sold as part of a larger software package. 5. The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but no copy of one or more of the individual Font Software typefaces that form the STIX Fonts set may be sold by itself. 6. THE FONT SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR OTHER RIGHT. IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROPRESS OR ANY OF THE STI PUB COMPANIES BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM OR OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE FONT SOFTWARE OR FROM OTHER DEALINGS IN THE FONT SOFTWARE. 7. Except as contained in this notice, the names of MicroPress Inc., the STI Pub Companies and the companies/organizations that compose the STI Pub Companies shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Font Software without the prior written consent of MicroPress Inc, the STI Pub Companies or the companies/organizations that compose the STI Pub Companies, respectively. 8. This License shall become null and void in the event of any material breach of the Terms and Conditions herein by licensee. 9. A substantial portion of the STIX Fonts set was developed by MicroPress Inc. for the STI Pub Companies. To obtain additional mathematical fonts, please contact MicroPress, Inc., 68-30 Harrow Street, Forest Hills, NY 11375, USA
bitstream font license
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font state among other: [...] The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by itself. [...] (see the full license at http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/ttf-bitstream-vera/ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-3/ttf-bitstream-vera.copyright ) Does the fact that the fonts cannot be sold separatly is compatible with the DFSG? Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bitstream font license
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font state among other: [...] The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by itself. [...] (see the full license at http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/ttf-bitstream-vera/ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-3/ttf-bitstream-vera.copyright ) Does the fact that the fonts cannot be sold separatly is compatible with the DFSG? In spirit, no. However, it is easy to work around that restriction. Simply sell the fonts as part of the Hello World package. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bitstream font license
Måns Rullgård wrote: olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font state among other: [...] The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by itself. [...] (see the full license at http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/ttf-bitstream-vera/ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-3/ttf-bitstream-vera.copyright ) Does the fact that the fonts cannot be sold separatly is compatible with the DFSG? In spirit, no. However, it is easy to work around that restriction. Simply sell the fonts as part of the Hello World package. Well, of course I admit that it is not a serious violation of the DFSG. I am not sure we can escape the license so easily. Some juges might take the spirit of the license into consideration and consider that doing this neverheless violates the license since the aim was only to provide the fonts (of course this might depend of the country and the juge; but I know that in some European country it is common to take the spirit of the contract into consideration rather that the technical terms themselves). Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bitstream font license
olive wrote: Does the fact that the fonts cannot be sold separatly is compatible with the DFSG? The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling [...] the software as a component of an AGGREGATE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION containing programs from several different sources. [DFSG1, emphasis added] The DFSG doesn't actually require that you be able to sell the software by itself. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: STIX Font License
Francesco Poli wrote: For instance, names such as STIX++, STIXng, newSTIX, STIXER, STICS, STHIX, and so forth, are banned by the above clause, but they are *different* from the original name, and thus comply with the maximum DFSG-allowed restriction on names. OTOH, were STIX a trademark (and it might be, haven't checked), all those names would most liekly be prohibited by trademark law. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: STIX Font License
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:47:16 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote: 4. If the Fonts are augmented pursuant to Section 3(b), the name used to denote the resulting fonts set shall not include the term ___STIX___ or any similar term, and any distribution or sale of the resulting fonts set must be free of charge unless the work is distributed or sold as part of a larger software package. [...] Likely to be DFSG Free, but problematic. I don't agree that this clause is DFSG-free. It says that the name of an augmented font cannot *include* the term STIX or *any similar* term. That is significantly broader than what is allowed by DFGS#4, which states (in part): | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or | version number from the original software. For instance, names such as STIX++, STIXng, newSTIX, STIXER, STICS, STHIX, and so forth, are banned by the above clause, but they are *different* from the original name, and thus comply with the maximum DFSG-allowed restriction on names. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpV00pdJpVrR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: bitstream font license
olive wrote: The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font state among other: [...] The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by itself. [...] (see the full license at http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/ttf-bitstream-vera/ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-3/ttf-bitstream-vera.copyright ) Does the fact that the fonts cannot be sold separatly is compatible with the DFSG? This has been previously discussed, see the list archives. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: STIX Font License
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:47:16 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote: 4. If the Fonts are augmented pursuant to Section 3(b), the name used to denote the resulting fonts set shall not include the term ___STIX___ or any similar term, and any distribution or sale of the resulting fonts set must be free of charge unless the work is distributed or sold as part of a larger software package. [...] Likely to be DFSG Free, but problematic. I don't agree that this clause is DFSG-free. It says that the name of an augmented font cannot *include* the term STIX or *any similar* term. My statement applies to section 5 which you elided, not section 4, which I didn't even bother to address (beyond the part which gets addressed in section 5.) Don Armstrong -- Fate and Temperament are two words for one and the same concept. -- Novalis [Hermann Hesse _Demian_] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: STIX Font License
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:09:43 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote: My statement applies to section 5 which you elided, not section 4, which I didn't even bother to address (beyond the part which gets addressed in section 5.) Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding! I thought you were referring to both clauses... :p -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpdRQVN0OsSQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] MJ Ray wrote: Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] All the details are available at: http://scripts.sil.org/OFL The page is not very accessible because [...] Sorry about that small design problem, we'll be fixing that bit of the ..css soon. Thank you [...] I suggest No Modified Version of the Font Software may use a name that is confusingly similar to the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is given by the Licensor. Maybe similarity isn't a very clear legal word either... Similar is used elsewhere in trademark laws, such as the Trade Marks Act 1994 currently in force in England: http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/tma1994121/s10.html So, there are examples which might inform what is and isn't acceptable use. In whole or in part is a phrasing I don't remember seeing for a name. It looks to me like the licence is trying to re-assert the legal protection of names, so please use common language, rather than introduce a naming lawyerbomb. [...] Elsewhere, Copyright Holder is capitalised but undefined and probably not relevant: I think Licensor is more relevant. Could you please elaborate a bit on that? The Copyright Holder(s) need not be involved in any particular instance of licensing. Other licensors may be able to grant permission, so parts of clause 3 may be lies in many reasonably possible cases. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
Nicolas Spalinger wrote: Could you elaborate a bit on why you think the verbatim copy only is problematic? It renders the license text non-free. The classic use case is the following: If at some point new people at SIL want to make a revised version of the license, it will be technically illegal for them to do so, because they'll be violating the copyright held by the writers of the original license. (At any rate this will be the case in countries which don't follow the work-for-hire doctrine, which is most of them, and will be the case everywhere if your work on the license does not constitute a work-for-hire of SIL.) They will need to get separate specific permission from you, Victor Gaultney, and anyone else who contributed text to the license, before they can revise it. If they can't find you or if you're dead, they're screwed. I pointed this out during the Apache License 2.0 drafting sessions: the verbatim-copy-only rule meant that email messages suggesting revisions to the license were mostly copyright violations. This is a *bad thing*. You could also look at it from the other side: why does it need to be non-free? IIRC it's used in DFSG-validated licenses. Yes. Those license texts are non-free. (That includes the text of the GPL preamble.) We allow non-free license texts in Debian main as a compromise, but only because we are required to distribute them as the legal license covering a piece of software in main. (For instance, if you included a non-free license text in an essay on how to choose a license text, or in a 'wizard' for attaching license text notices to your program, that essay and that 'wizard' would be non-free and could not go into Debian.) Ideally they would accompany Debian rather than being part of Debian, but this is technically difficult at the moment. I don't think we want more licenses. No, we don't want more licenses, but we do want more freedom. But anyway, if there *are* more licenses, it is much better if they reuse clauses we've already analyzed from old licenses, than if they are totally fresh license texts. This sort of non-freeness won't stop or reduce license proliferation. If anything, it will cause people who are intent on making their own licenses (like, um... you) to make licenses which are gratuitously different from existing licenses, causing needless trouble. You should note that you are currently writing a new license -- the OFL -- which has practically nearly the same effect as the zlib license (albeit with some potential non-freeness problems). Probably this is because the people who you want to get to use the license are demanding comfort clauses, which make them feel better even though they have little practical effect. This sort of thing is going to continue to happen, and if we can convince people to use a preexisting license as a base when they do this, it makes things a lot easier. The fact that these days everything is automatically copyrighted is the cause of this trouble. In the Good Old Days, license texts would normally be in the public domain. It is worth noting that this is an issue mostly independent from whether things licensed under the OFL are free. You (the copyright holders for the OFL) can issue a new license to the OFL text at any time, including after other people are using it. If you like you can relicense the OFL text under the GPL. Or under the OFL, for that matter. :-) -- On the matter of freeness of software licensed under the OFL: 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction applies to all references stored in the Font Software, such as the font menu name and other font description fields, which are used to differentiate the font from others. Non-free, because it prohibits accurate descriptive uses of the names, such as Foolio is based on Garamond. This is yet another example of trying to enforce trademarks through copyright, which causes endless trouble (and doesn't work, because non-derived works can happily trample on your namespace). You might be able to fix it by changing it to... Oh, wait, I can't actually write that suggested new version legally because the OFL is verbatim-copying only. Hmm, I guess I'll come up with a replacement clause which isn't a derived work You need something more akin to the zlib license, which says: The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. So here's a proposed clause based loosely on that: Modified Versions of the Font Software must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original Font Software. In particular, the Reserved Font Names may
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
Nathanael Nerode wrote: Important side issue: No modification of the license is permitted, only verbatim copy is allowed. Don't do this. Marking license texts as verbatim copy only is a bad habit and I encourage people not to. You want something more like the following: The OFL license text may be used, copied, and redistributed, modified or unmodified, without royalty, provided modified versions are renamed. Of course, this Font Software is only licensed under the actual, unmodified OFL, not under any modified version you may happen to find or create; but you may license your own wholly independent works under a modified version. We recommend not doing so, since license proliferation causes trouble. Hi, I'm not sure an ambiguity like that would really help against license proliferation. Defining in details what you could do and then recommend *not doing it* at the end is a bit of a contradication and IMHO really less than ideal. Could you elaborate a bit on why you think the verbatim copy only is problematic? IIRC it's used in DFSG-validated licenses. There are already too many non-reusable project and organisation-specific font licenses out there. That's certainly *more trouble* from the font designer's, the packager and the user's perspective. I don't think we want more licenses. SIL has done some serious research in the area of font licensing and - through our interaction with various key members of the FLOSS and type communities - we feel the OFL is re-usable and neutral enough that it will fist most needs while satisfying the golden standards of Free Software. Of course we rely on the community's collective review to further refine the license if needed. -- Nicolas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
MJ Ray wrote: Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] All the details are available at: http://scripts.sil.org/OFL The page is not very accessible because you set color without a background-color (set both or preferably neither, please) and you seem to be using 8pt body text (ow). It's really not nice to make it so small. I deactivated stylesheets to make it readable, so apologies if I miss any hidden emphasis. Hi, Sorry about that small design problem, we'll be fixing that bit of the .css soon. | 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual | components, in Standard or Modified Versions, may be sold | by itself. I am unhappy with this discrimination against commerce, but the workarounds are trivial. Yes, it's somewhat of a cultural middle ground between the FLOSS and font design communities. | 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font | Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is | granted by the Copyright Holder. [...] in part seems excessive: what does it mean? If the RFN is Facetious, can I use any vowels in my MV's name? Lawyerbomb. Yes, this is an area of possible ambiguity that we're looking at clarifying for future refinements of the license. The in part is really meant to cover the case when there are various words used in reserved font names. The unit to consider here is the word. But for now, version 1.0 - which is in use for the Gentium font family and will be for other projects next January - has been validated by the FSF and the SFLC (the update to license-list.html is imminent). I suggest No Modified Version of the Font Software may use a name that is confusingly similar to the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is given by the Licensor. Maybe similarity isn't a very clear legal word either... FAQ entry 2.7 has When choosing a name be creative and try to avoid names that sound like the original. Elsewhere, Copyright Holder is capitalised but undefined and probably not relevant: I think Licensor is more relevant. Could you please elaborate a bit on that? The dicussion continues and we're now looking for what -legal thinks. We've got font debs ready to go. Hope that helps, Yes it does. Thank you, -- Nicolas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
[snip] We've got font debs ready to go. Please use non-reserved font names, so that Debian is allowed to add missing glyphs to the fonts. Hi, I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. The idea behind using reserved font names is to avoid conflicting namespace between upstream and the various derivatives offering different Unicode coverage and features. It's about keeping users from expecting a feature which may not be present in a particular font. (See FAQ entries 2.7 and 2.8 for more details: http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web ) . And yes, we'd like to get the right free software font licensing model *recognized* by the Debian community so that *any DD or Debian contributor* can improve the fonts either through patches sent upstream or through a derivative offering better coverage of a specific script (or Unicode block). It's true that there are *a lot* of missing glyphs that need adding. What we intend the license to provide is a good collaborative layer that will ultimately allow many more users to enjoy Debian in their own language :-D Ps: sorry for the late reply -- Nicolas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open Font License
The SIL Open Font License[0], version 1.0 states: [PREAMBLE] The OFL allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. [CONDITION1] 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Standard or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. The License FAQ[1] on their website states the following (not legally binding, but just additional information): [QUESTION1.6] Question: 1.6 Can I include the fonts on a CD of freeware or commercial fonts? Answer: Yes, as long some other font or software is also on the disk, so the OFL font is not sold by itself. [QUESTION1.8] Question: 1.8 Why won't the OFL let me sell the fonts alone? Answer: The intent is to keep people from making money by simply redistributing the fonts. The only people who ought to profit directly from the fonts should be the original authors, and those authors have kindly given up potential income to distribute their fonts under the OFL. Please honor and respect their contribution! Summary --- The license is clearly non-free as it violates DFSG 1 and 6: Commercial redistribution of the font alone is not allowed. Guerkan, the maintainer of the ttf-gentium package, is already aware of the license change. However, the package needs to remain in non-free because of the said issues above. Nevertheless, he will update the package soon to the new license. Regards, Daniel [0] http://scripts.sil.org/OFL_web [1] http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open Font License
Dear All, The Gentium font (http://scripts.sil.org/gentium) has been re-released under the SIL Open Font License (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL). This is excellent news as there are few free/open-source fonts that cover the Latin, Cyrillic and Greek Unicode blocks, and special characters/symbols. I would like to update the ttf-gentium page, at http://packages.debian.org/unstable/x11/ttf-gentium so that the font is no longer under non-free. Is the SIL Open Font License (final version) free? Simos Hi Simos and Martin-Eric, I've now built a new .deb for Gentium 1.02 with improved maintainer scripts and all the right elements needed for an OFL release, it also includes the Fontlab sources. You can get it from http://scripts.sil.org/Gentium_download Your feedback is very welcome. As soon as we get the official position of the FSF published (rms and other key members of the community including Jim Gettys from GNOME already told us OFL 1.0 was free), and - of course - the agreement of Debian, we can upload into main. Eben Moglen and others from the Software Freedom Law Center are also looking into it. -- Nicolas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open Font License
Nicolas Spalinger wrote: (rms and other key members of the community including Jim Gettys from GNOME already told us OFL 1.0 was free) I seriously don't think[0] so. The mentioned violation of the DFSG also applies to the GNU Freedoms. Regards, Daniel [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00337.html -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#341138: Info received (was Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open Font License)
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s) and to other interested parties to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem, please send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as before. Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open Font License
(rms and other key members of the community including Jim Gettys from GNOME already told us OFL 1.0 was free) I seriously don't think[0] so. The mentioned violation of the DFSG also applies to the GNU Freedoms. Regards, Daniel [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00337.html Hi Daniel, I'm not so sure about that... See this post from Jim Gettys for example: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/fonts/2003-April/msg3.html RMS does think the license (version 1.0) is free, that's what he has told us via email. Anyway, let's wait for the FSF's official position. DFSG 1: Gentium can be sold as part of _any_ software agregate DFSG 6: I don't think there's any discrimination here at all as the OFL explicitely mentions the ability to sell Can you please elaborate a bit more on why you think the OFL violates the DFSG? What do you think of the Vera Bitstream or the Arphic licenses then? What do other -legal members think? -- Nicolas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open Font License
Daniel Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I seriously don't think[0] so. The mentioned violation of the DFSG also applies to the GNU Freedoms. You think wrong. DFSG 1 does not require any piece of software to allow commercial sale as an independent component. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open Font License
To make it short, as Matthew wrote: You think wrong. DFSG 1 does not require any piece of software to allow commercial sale as an independent component. is true, I agree. My problem of understanding is/was: a work that is licensed under OSF 1.0 is not free as an individual component because I am not allowed to redistribute it commercially as it is/unmodified (I have to add at least another component to be allowed to do so). Intuitively, I've said that Debian can ship such 'partially'/'not truly'-free works. Oviously, I was wrong and nevertheless, Debian does denote such works as free. This was and is not ment as an offence, it's just my personal understanding of free software. Regards, Daniel -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open Font License
Daniel Baumann wrote: Intuitively, I've said that Debian can ship such 'partially'/'not truly'-free works. s/can/can't/ -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open ?Font License
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The current Open Font License appears to have excessive restrictions upon the names of modified works. The Gentium font licence in particular reserves these terms: While this may be annoying, I can't see why it should not be DFSG-free. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open Font License
Dear All, The Gentium font (http://scripts.sil.org/gentium) has been re-released under the SIL Open Font License (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL). This is excellent news as there are few free/open-source fonts that cover the Latin, Cyrillic and Greek Unicode blocks, and special characters/symbols. I would like to update the ttf-gentium page, at http://packages.debian.org/unstable/x11/ttf-gentium so that the font is no longer under non-free. Is the SIL Open Font License (final version) free? Simos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
