Re: Oxygen font licensing

On 25 January 2012 07:37, vernon adams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25/01/12 15:00, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>
>> It seems reasonable to argue that the text and the font are two
>> separate works even if packaged into a PDF file.  A text and a font
>> seem separate by nature -- not like two program modules that are
>> combined into one program.
>>
>
> I'm not sure i understand the  sticking point on using the Open Font License
> for the Oxygen Fonts. Can someone remind me of the issue? Is there seriously
> a worry that any text written in an OFL licensed font could somehow become
> included under the license? I'm not aware of any font licensing (libre or
> proprietary) that has ever attempted that :)  'Text' and  'font' are
> obviously separate.

Typical copyleft licenses (such as the GPLs) cover 'combined works'
but not 'aggregate works.'

If a copyleft font is embedded in a document - such as a portion of a
TrueType font data file being copied into a PDF document file in order
for the document to always render using that font, even if the font is
not installed in the user's system - the PDF may be considered to be a
'combined work,' combining the fonts, images and texts into a single
work. This can be contrasted with a HTML document, where there is a
directory containing 3 files, a HTML text file, an (wholly unmodified)
image file, and an (whollly unmodified) TrueType font file. This seems
more obviously like an 'aggregation' rather than a 'combination.'

This is problematic because a GPL font would thus require all
documents made using it to be covered by the GPL in full.

The GNU project's GPL FAQ has a section about this topic -
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException - which takes
the position that PDF font embedding _can_ be considered subject to
the GPL's copyleft and therefore suggests adding an 'additional
permission' that allows PDF embedded with GPL fonts:

> As a special exception, if you create a document
> which uses this font, and embed this font or
> unaltered portions of this font into the document,
> this font does not by itself cause the resulting
> document to be covered by the GNU General
> Public License. This exception does not however
> invalidate any other reasons why the document
> might be covered by the GNU General Public
> License. If you modify this font, you may extend
> this exception to your version of the font, but you
> are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to
> do so, delete this exception statement from
> your version.

The OFL is also a copyleft license and therefore raises this issue,
but it has a similarly intended 'additional permission' in the 2nd
sentence of its copyleft clause, §5:

> 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole,
> must be distributed entirely under this license, and must 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.

Richard is suggesting that when a font is partially copied into a PDF
document, it can reasonably be considered separate to the combined
work of the document.

If this is true, the additional permission of the GPL and the OFL is
unnecessary; the consensus view is that it is not true, however.

Cheers
Dave
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing