Slashdot Log In
Unintended Consequences of Using GPL Fonts
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Apr 17, 2005 04:23 PM
from the say-what-now dept.
from the say-what-now dept.
innocent_white_lamb writes "An interesting discussion has surfaced on the Scribus mailing list. Simply stated, it appears that using GPL-licensed fonts in a document makes your document subject to the GPL. There are a lot of consequences here, such as internal corporate communications. It appears to make the use of GPL fonts undesirable in almost any document." Yes, it sounds crazy, but the experimental font-exception addition to the GPL (linked from the discussion) lends the idea some credence.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Presensation (Score:5, Insightful)
So isn't it the case either you can use the fonts, or not.
Why not... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why not... (Score:5, Funny)
Why do you hate America?
Parent
Re:Why not... (Score:4, Funny)
Holden Caulfield? Is that you?
Parent
Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you're not aware that type design is a pretty big business, and that good fonts are an exceptionally valuable product to those who are able to craft them.
There's also the curious case that typefaces can't be copyrighted in the US. They are considered "property", but not "intellectual property", or something to that effect, while the names can be trademarked. So, they can be copied ("Arial" is basically a copy of "Helvetica", for instance), but not duplicated (you can't call your Helvetica-clone face "Helvetica").
It's all very weird and it doesn't surprise me that there are strange legal possibilites cropping up. Type property rights have been argued over for as long as there has been type.
Parent
Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of public domain faces out on the web, but they're mostly of the novelty variety, and aren't really terribly relevant. Excepting them, here is why this hasn't happened yet:
1) Good type design is pretty hard.
2) Good type design for all-purpose screen fonts is really hard.
3) Tools are either expensive or crap.
4) Good type designers cost money.
5) There just isn't much incentive.
6) Open source community attitude toward design issues generally sucks.
It's a good idea, but the people to convince are professional type designers and foundries. Bitstream Vera is a (the only?) example I can think of like this, though it's merely under "generous copyright".
Parent
Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's basically what the "experimental exception" bit was about. Though to clarify the issue (muddied by the inaccurate Slashdot post) -- the problem was over embedding a font in a document. In that case, you're including code (typefaces are bytecode) in a larger work, which the GPL is pretty clear about.
The real conclusion is that the GPL isn't such a good idea for typefaces. For what it's worth, it doesn't even sound like there are any.
I don't recall Microsoft owning my documents because I used their Wingdings font.
You're confusing several different issues.
First, Microsoft wouldn't "own" your documents like this because Wingdings isn't under the GPL.
However, Wingdings is still subject to the license that Microsoft granted you to use it. You can't (under that license) copy it to another computer that doesn't have it. If you embed it in a Word document, and sent it to another computer, that computer will be able to display it, but not use it in other documents, unless it already has it.
Second, "owning" isn't even right in reference to the GPL -- the issue is whether the GPL of the embedded font "infects" your document, making it GPL. Even then, it's your copyrighted document, and you are free to re-license it as you please. You just can't legally license it as anything but GPL as long as you have that embeded GPL typeface.
Again, the only real conclusion here is that the GPL isn't really a good way to license fonts. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
Parent
Re:Why not... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Presensation (Score:4, Informative)
You can't copyright the font face, what a font looks like. I don't know whether this is a specific exception in copyright law for fonts and other entities like them however.
What you can copyright are all the other particular parts to the font such as kerning & positioning info, the particular set of characters in the font, or the font file itself (whatever format it may be).
No matter whether you use a GPL font, or one of Adobe's most expensive & protected DRM'd font, the font copyright owner has absolutely no hold over works created with that font whatsoever.
Parent
Re:Presensation (Score:5, Informative)
You cannot copyright the typeface itself, so documents printed from a font have no link legally with the font used to create it. That's embedded as a specific exception in copyright law.
You can't embed the font file itself or substantial pieces of the data that created it in a document (such as a PDF) without permission from the owner, and it is there that GPL exceptions may be needed to prevent the entire document from becoming GPL.
If anybody tells you that a typeface on a document you have created is GPLd, then that has absolutely no legal weight. Can't copyright font typefaces, fullstop.
Parent
Re:Presensation (Score:4, Interesting)
You can't embed the font file itself or substantial pieces of the data that created it in a document (such as a PDF) without permission from the owner, and it is there that GPL exceptions may be needed to prevent the entire document from becoming GPL.
If you're just embedding the font without any changes in a document, it seems clear to me that this is an aggregation, and not the creation of a separate work. From the GPL, "mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License."
Parent
Re:Presensation (Score:5, Insightful)
B) A huge difference between this and modifying GPL code is that it is impossible to argue that a document is a derivative work of the font it was printed in.
C) If this ever went to court [incredibly unlikely], the result would be "oh, ok I'll substitute a different font" not "suddenly all my documents are GPL". So the GPL isn't met and nothing else gives a license to use the font - that just means the suee'd have to stop using the font, not that the document would magically become GPL'd. Chances of damages in this kind of ridiculous logic-chopping of how fonts are implemented in typesetting documents: not a lot.
And can you honestly see the copyright owner of a font chasing document writers? (After all, the person launching the suit has to have an "interest" in the case - they can't just be a bystander making mischief or the courts won't hear it).
Not that big an issue after all, then.
Parent
Re:Presensation (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Presensation (Score:5, Informative)
A typeface is a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters.
A font is the computer file or program that is used to represent or create the typeface.
The FONT is copyrightable. It's what you called an 'electronic typeface file' which is redefining a term contrary to how the FAQ and original poster used it. the FONT and FONT FILE are the same thing and are the entire file used to represent or create a TYPEFACE. a TYPEFACE is by definition in the FAQ, the shape of the lettering ONLY.
You can copyright a FONT. as the faq and original poster says, You can't copyright TYPEFACES, end of story.
Parent
Ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
Methinks you misinterpreted things when you tried to redefine "electronic typeface file" which is already defined as "font" in the OPs comments.
Which as they correctly said, is copyrightable but the typeface itself is not.
Parent
Re:Presensation (Score:4, Insightful)
GCC and its core libraries are also GPL'd but GCC's terms explicitly limit the GPL's scope to exclude derived works (third-party code compiled and linked executables) from GPL coverage. Without this clause, writing closed-source commercial software for Linux would be practically illegal.
If using GPL'd fonts effectively GPL'd documents, GPL'd fonts would get ditched pretty quick since they would represent unnecessary liabilities.
With grey areas like these surrounding the GNU acronym, it is no wonder most companies approach anything related to it with extra caution. I generally keep my own projects GPL-free because I personally think the GPL is excessively restrictive... if I had to pick a license, I would go with a slightly stricter form of BSD's.
Parent
Seems a little silly to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I would like to see clarification, this seems like an attack on the GPL...
Re:Seems a little silly to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not documents are programs is debatable, but they are information that makes a computer behave a certain way. They take interpreter software (your reader software), but then, so does Java or Perl.
So if you're sufficiently nutty (and if you're involved in interpreting the GPL, you will be), using a font in a document is a lot like linking.
Now, you're right, generally you do distribute the 'source.' However, it's possible to embed fonts into a document (in a PDF, for example) and strip out the unused characters, which wouldn't be a full copy of the source. Moreover, you could print or otherwise rasterize the document, thereby losing the font source -- which is basically equivalent to compiling the source into binaries.
IMHO, this is all really insane. But I don't release code under the GPL anyway.
Parent
XML (Score:5, Interesting)
If a document's contents were in a file which mapped to a style sheet, a la HTML and CSS, or perhaps the more general purpose XML, then the contents (HTML) could be GPL conditions free, but the overall presentation would be subject to it.
Parent
Intellectual Property for Fonts is Very Complex (Score:4, Informative)
Some fonts *are* programs, like Postscript. Some are bunches of black dots (or other shapes like lines or ovals, or other colors, especially grays if you like anti-aliasing.) Some are bunches of equations. Some are programs in languages other than Postscript that implement equations to produce black dots. Some are stacks of twisty little metal pieces, all different, carved by hand. Some are programs to produce stacks of twisty little metal pieces.
Parent
Re:Intellectual Property for Fonts is Very Complex (Score:5, Interesting)
Bizarre rules, but not as bizarre as "The Font maker has copyright rights over your book because you used their font". Whis is basically the 'bizarre' GPL argument here. If Adobe or Bitstream claimed this, they would be laughed at by the publishing industry.
I think the main issue is that the Free Software faction has convinced themselves that "Derived Works" is much more extensive than it actually is, and that leads to all sorts of ridiclous conclusions.
Parent
Re:Seems a little silly to me. (Score:5, Informative)
I'll also point out that for a LaTeX document, I'm not giving you the prefered source format. If I generated the document from LaTeX source, and gave you the PDF version with an embedded GPL'ed font, you could easily claim I didn't give you the "preferred format". If I printed the document and handed it to you, that's not in electronic format, which is against the GPL (I'd have to at the very least give you a written offer for the document in electronic format good for at least 3 years if I remember the clauses correctly).
You couldn't print Trade Secrets in a font that is GPL'ed, as it would inheriently have more limitations added to it that the GPL doesn't allow.
Personally, I think GPL'ing a font is a lot like me saying I'm GPL'ing the blueprints to my house. It doesn't make any sense. I suppose it makes some, in the context of a derived work. However, I'm fairly doubtful it'd stand up to scruity in court. It probably means you are a copyright infringer, but as a license, it's fairly incoherent when applied to a font.
Kirby
Parent
Internal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Internal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then of course, just because you compile programs with GCC or write a script that uses the PHP interpreter does not make it open source.
I think this story should be -2 Troll
I really don't understand how someone reaches the belief that a font would require the document to be open source as well.
Unless you are storing your fonts inside the document itself.
Parent
I'm not sure thats right... (Score:5, Informative)
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. (emphasis mine)
Re:I'm not sure thats right... (Score:5, Informative)
Also from the GPL Faq is that you need to specifically add the exception text to the license. If this was not done then yes there is a problem.. Otherwise then there wouldn't be... As per usual the slashdot blurb is a bit sensationalist...
Parent
Re:I'm not sure thats right... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the important point in the FAQ you quoted is that it only applies to embedded fonts. Thus the
Parent
Clarifying vs. Changing vs. Lawyer Paranoia (Score:5, Interesting)
In some cases, a font is a program, especially in Postscript; in other cases, it's a set of bitmaps or curves or equations. Using a GPLed font *could* require that if you're including the binaries of the font in a document you give somebody, you might be required to tell them where to get source code for the font (if the font is the kind of program where there's a meaningful difference between the source and the binary, which isn't usually the case for Postscript fonts.) At worst, some people could argue that it could require that if you've printed a document using the GPL'd font, that you provide information on how to get the font program, but that's somewhat like saying that if you use a GPL'd version of printf, then anything you print out needs to include a GPL notice and information on where to get the source code.
So calm down. This isn't a case of GNU/RMS being expansively greedy for ownership of everything everybody writes or prints. On the other hand, if you do modify GPL'd fonts, then GPL coverage of the modified versions is a perfectly reasonably thing.
Parent
Re:I'm not sure thats right... (Score:5, Informative)
This just means that GPLed fonts are unusable for non-GPLed documents, not that you'll accidentally GPL your document. Assuming that it's true in the first place. So stop using the unusable fonts, and you'll be fine.
Parent
I hate being a perfect test case. (Score:5, Interesting)
Theoretically, do I need to be distributing the my Fireworks/PS files themselves or just the fonts? Obviously I'm a bit confused as to how this works, and hadn't considered that the GPL would apply to my "documents", many of which I've sold.
Back to Frutiger.
Parent
Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Not to mention GPL'd words (Score:5, Funny)
When asked for comments, a Microsoft spokesperson said, "Well, we certainly don't know anything about 'open' or 'free,' and I'm pretty certain our company has never acknowledged the existance of the word 'fair.' We will be opening an investigation to make sure that other communist...uh...GPL'd phrases are not and will not ever appear in our literature."
How does this differ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would using a font make the end-product fall under the GPL?
First of all, if you haven't changed the font itself, you have no obligation to provide it to anyone - Just like with GPL'd software.
Second, if you only use it for within an organization, you have no obligation to provide it to anyone - Just like with GPL'd software.
Third, the license under which a given tool falls does not usually extend to what it creates - I can use GCC to compile non-GPL code, I can use GIMP to create non-GPL (or CC, in this case?) artwork, and I can use OO to produce non-GFDL documents.
So why would any of the above magically differ for a font?
Re:How does this differ... (Score:4, Interesting)
A different angle would be TeX documents... this means I would have to give out the source for the font and the TeX along with PDFs I give out. Again not the end of the world I guess.
Like you said I too can't see how this actually impacts on how people use tools. Perhaps this is more MSFT inspired FUD?
Maybe we should get the authors of the fonts to weigh in. I suspect they don't give a rats ass provided copyright has been attributed properly.
Tom
Parent
Re:How does this differ... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
GNU Privacy Guard (Score:5, Interesting)
If anyone tries to enforce this (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't say this as a troll.
The GPL is written to protect programs... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just another example of why using the GPL for content other than programs is a bad idea.
No no no. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I use a GPL program to assist creation of a website, that website is not then subject to GPL.
This story is addressing a non-issue
ok, I haven't looked at the Scribus format... (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, I'm just saying "I thought this document would work best with font X", which would in no way create a GPL obligation. PDFs do, however, include actual font data, so you could presumably be creating a GPL obligation by publishing one.
But remember, unless you EXPLICITLY license a copyright you hold as releasable under the GPL, simply including other GPLed work with it DOES NOT make you lose the rights to your code. You are violating the copyright on the GPLed section, and you may be liable for damages for doing so, but it's not like you magically lose control over the code you wrote yourself.
When you combine your own output with GPLed ouput, the resulting program, in essence, has at least two owners... you, and the person or people who wrote the GPLed section. You can't lose ownership of your code by combining it with GPLed code. You still own the part you created.
Likewise, you can't lose ownership of your document by publishing it with GPL fonts. Even if the GPL is found to be applicable here, about the worst that could happen would be a forced rerelease with a different font. You will never lose control of the actual document information. And the chance of a copyright-infringement lawsuit is nearly zero. In this scenario, it's not clearly obvious that a violation occurred, and the actual damages are most likely zero, since GPLed fonts are usually free-as-in-beer. About the worst that's likely to happen is a nasty letter from some zealot somewhere in the OSS community.
I think I can safely risk that.
Derived work (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. (Score:5, Informative)
Simply stated, it appears that using GPL-licensed fonts in a document makes your document subject to the GPL.
No it doesn't. A derivative work which is derived from both your document and the fonts must be released under the GPL (which is different from saying that it automatically is released under the GPL), but in any case the document itself need not be released under the GPL. From the GPL:
Finally, all this needs to be combined with the fact that fonts are probably not copyrightable in the first place, at least not in the United States.
This has happened before (Score:4, Interesting)
Just as in this case, that was an accident and after much apologising the yacc people relicenced the boilerplate code to public domain. It simply is not the intention of free software developers to 'infect' other programs.
I would anticipate a very similar solution in this case. The licence for the fonts just needs a minor tweak explicitly allowing their inclusion and everything goes back to how you'd expect.
It's legalesse. People stuff up occasionally. When they notice, they fix it and move on.
Nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
By my reading, there are two cases in which the GPL requires you to allow others to reproduce your work.
1. If you "modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it
Even if you assume that the font is a "Program," you are not modifying your copy of the font by using it.
2. "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form
Fonts are not in either object code or executable form, so no problem here.
3. "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license form the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program...."
But, that's not a problem -- they get your document and they get a right to modify the font from the original licensor.
Incidently, how many GPL'd fonts are distributed with the font equivalent of "Source Code" -- the data file used by whatever font program you used?
One reason that we have so many competing Open Source Licenses is that the GPL is not exactly clear in a lot of areas. For example, section 2 says "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program," and a "work based on the program" is defined to be "the program or any derivative work under copyright law." But, does that mean that section 2 applies to all derivative works or only to modificiations of the original program? I'm guessing the intent was that it should apply to all derivative works, but it actually reads like it only applies to modifications. Not all derivative works are modifications.
There's a rule of construction in contract cases that says that you "construe the contract against the drafter." In the case of fonts, that probably means that writing a document using a font is not covered by the GPL.
Documents are not code (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL repeatedly refers to "the Program" or "a Program" and it's "source code".
A document, which is data, cannot be construed to be code, it's quite as simple as that.
Using a font, in the document, further, does not make the document a "derivative work" of the font nor does the document "link with" the font in the usual sense, as the document only references the font in it's metadata.
In short. The author of the above article is totally full of it and doesn't know what he/she is talking about as are all of the fine souls on the scribus list.
GJC
Re:And you say GPL isnt viral (Score:5, Insightful)
If this isnt an prime example right in your face, i dont know what is.
BSD type licensing is free, and isnt viral..
Please quit spreading FUD. The only thing that this shows is that application of the GPL to non-software has some issues. Ever wonder why the GNU Free Documentation License was written? Granted, BSD-type licenses lend themselves to be applicable to a wider range of content, but that is just incidental, it was not designed into the license.
Basically, your options are:
Parent
Re:And you say GPL isnt viral (Score:5, Informative)
There is exactly one way for code you wrote to end up under the GPL: you put it there explicitly. No other way. None.
That said, if you used GPLed code in writing it, and don't put it under the GPL, you're committing copyright infringement. You don't have permission to use GPL code in non-GPL projects (unless there's some dual license thing going on or something). So yes, releasing a font under the GPL is going to restrict its use. But, if you didn't realize the font was GPLed, your document isn't suddenly GPL -- you just aren't allowed to distribute it, because you don't have a license to redistribute the font, since you're not using the GPL. So, if someone releases a non-GPL document using a GPL font, the normal course would be for someone to point it out to them, and them to take corrective action (possibly with an intermediate legal proceeding). That corrective action could be to stop distribution of the document, use a different (non-GPL) font, or to put the document under the GPL. But there are no examples of someone being forced to GPL code they didn't want to.
Parent
Not quite the case... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, not quite true. Checking the font FAQ [nwalsh.com], since you can only copyright a scalable font (not TypeFace designs or Bitmap fonts) I could print out my document, thus making it type face, and then I wouldn't have to worry about your license.
Also, since most document formats only tell the document viewer "use this font if it's installed, otherwise use the system default font," so long as I don't specifically embed your font into my document, distributing my document would fall outside your control.
What you could do is state that whenever I distribute a copy of your font (since that's what you hold copyright to) I have to stand on my head and whistle. This would also mean whenever I distribute my document in PDF format or some other format that embeds the font within the file I could have to stand on my head and whistle, but...
if I don't embed the font my file doesn't contain any information about your font other than your font name before the text I requested my document editor to format using your font. My document will load just fine without your font, it just won't look as purdy.
IANAL, but in-so-much as I understand the way of things, this is how it works.
Parent