Re: Is the IPA Font License truly open source?

Hi,

Thanks for looping me in—since my X/Twitter thread was referenced, I should
clarify my view.

As a matter of fact, the Council for the Promotion of Character Information
Technology (CITPC), which inherited the font program from IPA, contacted
the operator of a site that offered WOFF-converted builds of the MJ Mincho
font released under the IPA Font License v1.0, and asked them to refrain
from publishing those fonts. The operator subsequently removed the fonts. I
don’t know what was discussed privately between the parties.

Based on the public information, my read is: the WOFF builds were treated
as a “derived program” under the IPA Font License (format conversions are
expressly considered derivatives), and the redistribution appears not to
have followed Article 3.1 conditions. If they had renamed the
font/family/file names, provided any additional files (if any) needed for
further modification, offered a method for recipients to replace the
derived program with the original, and distributed under the same license,
I believe the service could likely have continued. It seems the operator
chose removal rather than implementing those compliance steps.

Accordingly, I don’t see this episode as bearing on whether the IPA Font
License v1.0 is “Open Source.” It looks like an operational compliance
issue around redistribution conditions, not a challenge to the license’s
status.

--
Shuji Sado

2025/9/8 7:32 Josh Berkus <[email protected]>:

> On 9/4/25 09:55, [email protected] wrote:
> > In March 2024, an incident occurred where the operator of a web service
> > converting IPA fonts licensed under the IPA Font License to WOFF format
> > received a warning from the IPA to discontinue the service.
> > In response, questions have arisen within the Japanese-speaking open-
> > source community about whether the IPA Font License fundamentally meets
> > the definition of open source.
>
> The IPA Font License pretty explicitly allows changes of format and
> redistribution.  Am I not understanding the case here?  What is IPA's
> objection?
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Shuji Sado
Chairman, Open Source Group Japan
https://opensource.jp/
https://shujisado.com/

_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org