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
PoV). Again, common-sense says the license shouldn't bind in that case,
but the license makes it explicit.
Sorry if I'm being obtuse. I just don't see what the problem would be.
Of course, I am not a lawyer.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock@AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
Reply to: