Re: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:37:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Simos Xenitellis: The StixFonts project started 10 years ago by several publishing houses of academic journals, with the aim to create fonts for mathmetical publications. These fonts, StixFonts, are nearing completion and at this point a draft user license has been made available at http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html | 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. Clearly non-free. I can understand why people think that such a clause is a technical necessity (reproducible layout), but it still violates DFSG clause 3. What about a clause mandating that the layout size or whatever it is called, remains the same for existing fonts ? But i think the easiest way out here is to allow modifications of fonts, but forcing name change if there is modification of existing glyphs. BTW, i wonder why the vera bitstream licence could not be used as is by this project, in order to avoid yet another licence, and probably cut down lawyer fees. (That said, if you are discussing with the lawyer ...) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:37:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: | 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. Clearly non-free. I can understand why people think that such a clause is a technical necessity (reproducible layout), but it still violates DFSG clause 3. The parallel argument for programs is that they shouldn't be modifiable so as to give reproducible output. Let the program be a font renderer (adobe acrobat), just to make it entirely equivalent. People who think it's necessary would be the same ones that think free software can't work. Generally not worth arguing with them. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
* Sven Luther: Clearly non-free. I can understand why people think that such a clause is a technical necessity (reproducible layout), but it still violates DFSG clause 3. What about a clause mandating that the layout size or whatever it is called, remains the same for existing fonts ? I don't think the font people would accept this. We shouldn't, either. But i think the easiest way out here is to allow modifications of fonts, but forcing name change if there is modification of existing glyphs. Exactly, this is what Bitstream Vera's license requires. BTW, i wonder why the vera bitstream licence could not be used as is by this project, in order to avoid yet another licence, and probably cut down lawyer fees. (That said, if you are discussing with the lawyer ...) Probably the same reason why Cisco's competitors don't use their free networking schematics. 8-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
Florian Weimer wrote: * Sven Luther: Clearly non-free. I can understand why people think that such a clause is a technical necessity (reproducible layout), but it still violates DFSG clause 3. What about a clause mandating that the layout size or whatever it is called, remains the same for existing fonts ? I don't think the font people would accept this. We shouldn't, either. In materialising this into a concrete suggestion, do you guys suggest something like: Change 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. to 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. and the rest stays the same. But i think the easiest way out here is to allow modifications of fonts, but forcing name change if there is modification of existing glyphs. Exactly, this is what Bitstream Vera's license requires. Another suggestion would then be: You may use the license that the Bitstream Vera fonts are distributed with, available at http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ (Section Copyright). This license has already been approved by free and open source projects. All in all, I think we stand that http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html is equivalent with http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ (Copyright) apart from 3b which does not allow the potential modification of the base glyphs (characters). Right? An argument why 3b should be amended to allow modification of the base glyphs is that in practice there is little incentive to change existing glyphs. Examining the example of Bitstream Vera, there is no documented modification/fixing of any existing glyphs but only additions, to support Cyrillic, Greek and other alphabets. In addition, Stixfonts have (see www.stixfonts.org, then Table of included characters) Latin Extended A, Latin Extended B, Cyrillic and Greek. Therefore, if I were to make a prediction, the fonts will be included as is, using the name Stixfonts, with no modifications at all. The comment link at http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html is working now. Feel free to make consice and constructive suggestions! :) Simos p.s. I am not affiliated with StixFonts or any of the companies behind the project. I just want to see those (and more) quality fonts in Linux distros, be included by default. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
* Simos Xenitellis: In materialising this into a concrete suggestion, do you guys suggest something like: Change 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. to 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. and the rest stays the same. From a free software point of view, the problems remain. Another suggestion would then be: You may use the license that the Bitstream Vera fonts are distributed with, available at http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ (Section Copyright). This license has already been approved by free and open source projects. If I were you, I would include the license verbatim (copyright on the license text permitting). All in all, I think we stand that http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html is equivalent with http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ (Copyright) apart from 3b which does not allow the potential modification of the base glyphs (characters). Right? I think so, yes. An argument why 3b should be amended to allow modification of the base glyphs is that in practice there is little incentive to change existing glyphs. Look at a few of Debian's gsfonts bugs to get a different picture. (The base set of glyphs is not defined by the license, so we have to assume that it applies to all characters.) In addition, removing glyphs is a very common activity. For example, if a copy of a font is embedded into a Postscript or PDF document, typically only the subset which is actually used in the document is included. As written, the license does not permit this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
Simos Xenitellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html It looks that the license is similar to that of Bitstream Vera (good!). Could you please check the license and provide feedback to them? [The feedback form at www.stixfonts.org is not working at the moment, I reported it to them.] Given that, I have no idea where to send the feedback. Please relay a summary of this thread if you have another way to contact them. In my opinion, this licence gives free redistribution, acceptably protects integrity of the author's source, doesn't discriminate against people and allows distribution of licence, but it does not permit some derived works (clauses 3 and 4, that you mentioned), and I feel that clauses 4 and 5 may discriminate against commercial resale or contaminate other software or both. Do the fonts come with source code? [...] if you feel that something needs to change in article 3, say so, providing a new suggested text. Remember, this is a draft license. Please use an existing licence or ask the drafting lawyers to correct the above problems with this one. I am not a lawyer, nor experienced enough in foreign law, and will likely botch it. Good luck packaging these for debian, -- 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 check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
* Simos Xenitellis: The StixFonts project started 10 years ago by several publishing houses of academic journals, with the aim to create fonts for mathmetical publications. These fonts, StixFonts, are nearing completion and at this point a draft user license has been made available at http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html | 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. Clearly non-free. I can understand why people think that such a clause is a technical necessity (reproducible layout), but it still violates DFSG clause 3. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#325653: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
Le mardi 30 août 2005 à 03:37 +0100, Simos Xenitellis a écrit : Package: fontconfig Version: 1.1 Please, this has nothing to do in a bug log, especially in fontconfig. The StixFonts project started 10 years ago by several publishing houses of academic journals, with the aim to create fonts for mathmetical publications. These fonts, StixFonts, are nearing completion and at this point a draft user license has been made available at http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html It looks that the license is similar to that of Bitstream Vera (good!). Could you please check the license and provide feedback to them? I would expect as response something like Yes, we checked the license, and as is, it's suitable to include in Debian! or As is it's not good, but if you change this to that we could include in Debian!. Such quality fonts are very difficult to find and here we have a good chance to get it right and have the fonts included in Debian and other distributions. Sorry, but this is highly non-free : 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. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Bug#325653: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
Le mardi 30 août 2005 à 13:23 +0100, Simos Xenitellis a écrit : Sorry, but this is highly non-free : 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. But if you read the next paragraph, it says: 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. The people behind StixFonts appear to be quite nice to adapt their license so that it can be used in free software, so my worry is to notice now any license issues now, rather than latter. If they publish the fonts and we find an issue with the license then, we effectively would have shot ourselves in the foot. As it is, the license is clearly non-free. It could become free if, for example, they let the right to modify existing glyphs if references to stix are removed. I filed this issue under fontconfig because I have no clue where to contact in the Debian structure about this. It would be awesome if Debian could have a look at http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html and make a statement similar to one of the following: a. We checked the draft license and if it stays as is, the fonts are properly free. b. We checked the draft license and it's not free, but if you change this to that, it's properly free. This is exactly why I added debian-legal as a CC, but you removed it in your reply. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Bug#325653: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
Le mardi 30 août 2005 à 14:19 +0100, Simos Xenitellis a écrit : As it is, the license is clearly non-free. It could become free if, for example, they let the right to modify existing glyphs if references to stix are removed. My belief is, this is exactly what Point 4 says. If the fonts are augmented (changed; derivative work), quit the STIX reference (or similar, like Sticks, Steex,) and provide your own name for them. Distribution is available as normally. No. Point 4 makes an explicit reference to section 3b to define augmented. It means this clause is an additional restriction; it doesn't give any right for a derivative work. This is exactly why I added debian-legal as a CC, but you removed it in your reply. I simply replied to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address. I need to learn more on this bugs system. I send this e-mail in personal, not to screw again the headers. Please, keep the discussion on the debian-legal mailing list (which has nothing to do with the bug tracking system) and stop answering privately. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
Hi All, I am starting this thread again, devoid of the reference to fontconfig. First I would like to say that I am not affiliated with the Stixfonts project; I am advocate of free software like everyone here who wants the best for our common effort. The StixFonts project started 10 years ago by several publishing houses of academic journals, with the aim to create fonts for mathmetical publications. These fonts, StixFonts, are nearing completion and at this point a draft user license has been made available at http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html It looks that the license is similar to that of Bitstream Vera (good!). Could you please check the license and provide feedback to them? [The feedback form at www.stixfonts.org is not working at the moment, I reported it to them.] I would expect as response something like 1. Yes, we checked the license, and as is, it's suitable to include in Debian! or 2. As is it's not good, but if you change this specific clause to that xyz, we could include in Debian!. Typically with font licenses the problem arises with the ability to make derivative works. Articles 3 and 4 from http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html try to address the issue: ``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.'' 3b and 4 appear to restrict the modification or removal of existing glyphs, allowing however the addition of more glyphs for better Unicode coverage a la Bitstream Vera. Although in practice the base set of glyphs will not probably need to be edited at all, it's an issue of freedom. Therefore, if you feel that something needs to change in article 3, say so, providing a new suggested text. Remember, this is a draft license. Such quality fonts are very difficult to find and here we have a good chance to get it right and have the fonts included in Debian and other distributions. Please contribute constructively to this! Simos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
