Bug#673096: [FIGlet] Figlet Font Licensing
[Please keep cc: list intact, so people don't have to subscribe to the
non-public figlet mailinglist]
Hi all,
During a review of my updated figlet 2.2.4-1 package[1], it was
discovered that the fonts directory still contains non-distributable
files. An example of these files are the fonts/8859-*.flc files. These
files contain the following paragraph: "Unicode, Inc. specifically
excludes the right to re-distribute this file directly to third
parties or other organizations whether for profit or not".
Bart Martens has helpfully suggested that the files could be replaced
by the following re-distributable file [2].
This problem also affects existing 2.2.2-1 packages that currently
exist in unstable, testing, stable and oldstable [3], and will result
in these packages being removed from Debian until the issue is solved
[4].
I have since noticed that there has also been activity recently on the
fedora bug tracker regarding the same issue [5].
It would be great to have these issues solved so that figlet could
continue to be included in the next Debian release.
Many thanks,
Jon
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=673096#18
[2] ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674844
[4] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674850
[5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642#c27
On 14 May 2012 11:46, Claudio Matsuoka <cmatsuoka@gmail.com> wrote:
> The standard font set ("ours") is certainly safe to be in main. Being
> the C-64 collection not subject to copyright, only 3x5 remains to be
> checked.
>
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Ian Chai <ianjuliane@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Glenn & I had every intention when we made up FIGlet that it be "freely
>> usable by everyone as long as they acknowledge". That was our original
>> intention and so we fully endorse taking steps to get it into the free
>> section of Debian.
>>
>> If some third-party font copyrights turn out to be the problem, can we at
>> least get the standard set into the free section?
>>
>>
>> On 14 May 2012 07:38, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Claudio Matsuoka scripsit:
>>>
>>> > Some controversy arose, however, on the license terms of some
>>> > contributed fonts (all of them outside the main package). I'll contact
>>> > the author of the 3x5 font to resolve one of these issues, but I'm not
>>> > sure about the C-64 fonts. Are 8-bit computer bitmapped console font
>>> > shapes (not files) covered by specific copyrights, or can we consider
>>> > them to be in public domain? Maybe you could check that with someone
>>> > in the Debian legal team?
>>>
>>> Bitmap fonts are in the public domain in the U.S., because they are
>>> considered insufficiently creative to copyright. Specifically, the actual
>>> *appearance* of a font cannot be copyrighted, and bitmaps are considered
>>> just a trivial transformation of the appearance. Scalable fonts are
>>> computer programs, though, and are copyrightable.
>>>
>>> Thus my Figlet fonts in the bdffonts directory, which are based on the X
>>> bitmap fonts, as well as anything from the C-64 world, are safely public
>>> domain in the U.S. In Europe it may be a different story in principle,
>>> but the chances that anyone will sue are essentially nil. Such lawsuits
>>> are very expensive and there is no hope of any financial gain by them.
>>> What is more, the bdffonts have MIT-ish licenses, though the copyright
>>> notices are probably invalid.
Reply to: