On 06/01/2008, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Op zaterdag 05-01-2008 om 09:15 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Stephen > Hartke: > > Maybe a solution is to release the source code under the GPL and the > > font file under the OFL, though I'm not sure this can legally be done > > (as the GPL usually refers to the whole program). > > If you own the copyright, you can do that.
You can, but I don't think it makes any sense. Since I am the sole copyright holder, I can use my Metafont font source code to compile an OFT font object file and then license that OTF under the OFL. If I license my Metafont source code to you under the GPL, and you use it to compile a OTF font object file, that is also under the GPL since it is a derived work. You cannot relicense this under the OFL since you are not the sole copyright holder. That is good, because it maintains software freedom for the font for all users of the font. (I am starting to see the problems with the GNU FDL now...) > That way, people who use and > modify your build scripts will have to release their binaries under the > GPL, Build scripts are not the complete source code for a font, only a small but essential part. If you dual-license them under the GPL and a weak copyleft license (like the OFL) or non-copyleft license (like the FreeBSD license), that ensures they are compatible with a GPL-only build script, but it means they are vulnerable to proprietors. (Also, its worth noting that the GPL doesn't require publication, it only requires complete source code distribution when you chose to distribute your work :-) (That means there is a "network service loophole" where GPL software is used through a network protocol/API and so no distributed, so the users do not have freedom. The Affero GPL aims to solve that problem, not by requiring publication, but by requiring users of the software to access the complete corresponding source code. So your right to private modification (eg, running a network server privately on your Intranet) is respected.) > I think it's nothing different from MySQL, Trolltech (Qt), Innotek > (Virtualbox), etc. selling binaries under a closed source license to > those who dislike open source for some reason. Distributing software under a weak/non-copyleft license is not akin to releasing proprietary software. When the goal is software freedom for all users, releasing weak/non-copyleft software is usually short sighted, because there are proprietors who will take the best parts of the unprotected free software and improve the good parts and add them to their proprietary programs without distributing their improvements. This tramples the hard-won practical advantages of free software. For example, all the great work done in the FreeBSD operating system is exploited by Apple in Mac OS X. Occasionally, it is tactically useful to cooperate with proprietary software developers and allow them to link their proprietary programs with free ones, as long as the free software remains free. This is the basis of the GNU Lesser GPL (LGPL). Rarely it is tactically useful to allow proprietors to exploit the actual free program, like with the Xiph Ogg Theora and Vorbis media codecs. Since there are exceptions where it is tactically advantageous to do so, I don't criticize people who do release free software in that way - I'm happy and grateful that they release free software! :-) - but I do kindly suggest that they use a GPL-compatible license, or better the GPL itself (current version "and later"). I am always interested in the reasons why people pick less than strong copyleft for their free works, and hope to explain the benefits of strong copyleft in a helpful way. Sadly, mostly people don't use the GPL because their goal is not software freedom, but either that they want to exploit the commons community (ie, X11 in the 1980s and 90s) or because they have a simplified view of freedom (FreeBSD) Thats very different to releasing some crippled free software alongside some full-powered proprietary software, as Trolltech and Innotek do. This sometimes seems a little like cynically manipulating and undermining the idea of software freedom to me, but I am overall thankful for what contribution these companies do make to the software freedom movement - and strongly encourage them to release the full version as free software. MySQL do just that, in fact, and I then strongly encourage them to only offer software under the GPL. -- Regards, Dave _______________________________________________ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
