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]
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]
