Unintended Consequences of Using GPL Fonts 514
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.
Presensation (Score:5, Insightful)
So isn't it the case either you can use the fonts, or not.
Why not... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, come on, it's a damned font.
Re:Why not... (Score:5, Funny)
Why do you hate America?
Re:Why not... (Score:4, Funny)
Holden Caulfield? Is that you?
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.
Re:Why not... (Score:3, Interesting)
That way the font can be used by anyone to make a proprietary document, but if you intend to use the font for your program, you have to abide by the GPL.
Thus, end users are exempted from putting their documents under the GPL (that just sounds dang odd... my words are now GPLed because of the font I used?) I don't recall Micros
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.
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".
Re:Why not... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not... (Score:3, Funny)
How would you like to use Times New Roman on your wedding invitation?
That's probably not a very worrisome question on Slashdot.
Re:Presensation (Score:2)
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.
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.
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."
Re:Presensation (Score:3, Interesting)
This is interesting.
So Knuth's METAFONT does something useful; when you compile a TeX document, the font stored in the resulting file is bitmapped, so not subject to copyright.
Newer LaTeX setups with vector fonts could be subject to this, if the fonts are GPL'd.
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.
Re:Presensation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Presensation (Score:3, Insightful)
Another thing to look at as well is when it is stored in binary format is the font its self stored as well? If not then as long it is not being displayed the font is not effecting it there is no real li
Re:Presensation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Presensation (Score:3, Interesting)
Say two fonts come out with the same name, one GPL and one public domain. You might only know about the PD one, and use it in your document. The GPL obviously has no power, and nor can it do so when you give it to somebody who has only the GPL font. The only thing the document knows about the font is the name, which cannot be GPL'd.
It goes without saying th
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bigelow's Times Roman History (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Seems a little silly to me. (Score:2, Insightful)
The source is not the only thing required to be attached to the GPL, the right to redistribute is not always a good thing to give to people (medical records etc.).
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
Internal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Internal? (Score:2, Troll)
Consider also, the GPL does not force you to distribute to EVERYONE, only the people who have received binaries from you. This would be the obvious case when passing a text document around. Like all other GPL code, the receipients can consider if they want to pass it on further.
I really don't see this as a problem. There's no way that they could possibly mean that all your documents would need to be made available for everyone. Why, the only way that everything yo
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.
-1 Load of Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
GPL does not require you to "release the source code to anyone that asked for it". It requires you to distribute source code with your binaries. Only the people who got the binaries legaly have right to ask you for the source code. Of course they can then distribute it further.
It is also not true that "ase you may charge a nominal fee, but the fee can be no more than the cost of physical media or transfer fees such as paper, b
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...
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
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.
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.
Re:I'm not sure thats right... (Score:2, Informative)
To use this exception, add this text to the license notice of each file in the package (to the extent possible), at the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:
It clearly doesn't apply if a font is distributed under the GPL without such an addition.
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.
Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:3)
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Using a GPL-ed font in a document would be just like using a GPL-ed IDE, I would think.
That depends what type of document.
When you create a program with an IDE, does the IDE get included in the program it creates? No.
When you create a document that uses a certain font, does that font get included in the document? In many cases, yes.
I'm surprised that this is so controversial, it seems plainly obvious to me. Are you copying fonts? Then you need a license. The GPL is one such license.
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:2, Insightful)
If it were a format that actually included the font itself, but just applied the saved font to the text, the point still stands. Distributing the document at all would distribute the code for the font.
If you were going to take the GPL-ed font, use it in a document, and then print th
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
This is obvious. What isn't so obvious is whether the document is a derivative work. I'd say it isn't. If I write a Java program, that doesn't make it a derivative work based on the JVM, no matter whether I distribute it with or without said JVM. If I write a Visual Basic program, it doesn't become derivative work based on the runtime library, even if di
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Informative)
Question (Score:2)
What would happen... (Score:2)
Doubtful (Score:3, Insightful)
--Ryv
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.
Copyright and fonts (Score:2)
This is a layman rumour, don't take my word for it, but since GPL builds upon copyright legislation, it could mean that the GPL license does not hold in this case.
What is GPL'd? The font or the text? (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL should not have anything to do with the text that I have happened to render in a GPL'd font.
GPL != Panacea (Score:2)
Re:GPL != Panacea (Score:2)
Hehehe.
I think *shock* the license should be product specific. Clearly a font and a PNG library are meant to be used differently. Why you'd use the GPL for both
If anything fonts should be LGPL since they're part of the document but you're not modifying them...
Tom
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
Re:How does this differ... (Score:2)
Re:How does this differ... (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong (Score:2)
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.
In fact, anyone who distributes GPL software in binary form is obligated to distribute the source, whether or not they've made modifications to the source.
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
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
GNU Privacy Guard (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GNU Privacy Guard (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait...
You already did, and there was no binary!
Re:GNU Privacy Guard (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Feild Day (Score:2)
I doubt this would hold up anyway (Score:2)
It is somewhat analogous to saying GIMP to make an image, the image does not become part of the GPL.
Also with a font, a document is not typically intended to be a font distribution method. Fonts are almost always distributed as stand alone objects to be installed in your system. No
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)
Controversey Lovers (Score:3, Interesting)
For whatever reason, there are some people who just LOVE contronversey. They LIKE to get into big flame wars on mailing lists. These people are TROLLS and should be ignored. This one's not even close to being right. A document is not a derived work of a font. Is a document with copyrighted Adobe fonts subject to that font's license? If you extracted the font from the document and created a new font file THAT would be a violation but the document itself is a separate work. This is just like the apache fools who claim the LGPL is not suitable for Java libraries. The Sun libraries constitute the standard environment of the Java language. These guys need to actually read the GPL before that make such rediculous claims.
Also, the GPL and LGPL is slightly subject to some community interpretation. To some extent it is what we say it is. That's why what these folks are doing is also a little dangerous. I claim the LGPL is ok for Java libs. Who's going to stop me from shipping my library as LGPL? Linux binary only modules are not subject to GPL. Why? Because Linus says the're not derived works of the Kernel. I'm pretty sure everyone will conclude that documents that use GPL fonts should not be GPL. And therefore they aren't.
Ignore these IP-issue sensationalizing trolls. They just want something to argue about. Let them argue - in courier.
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.
Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Documents are not code-Patents. (Score:3, Informative)
The governing force of any contract or license is intent. Was it the intention of the FSF to force documents to be under the GPL, I think not. This is evidenced by the use of "The Program" all over the document.
Additionally, we're talking copyrights here. Patents are a different beast entirely.
Re:Documents are not code-Patents. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think people who deprecate the GPL are funny, I really do. Because they consistently miss the point.
It won't stand up in a court of law, and that's what's important. Fonts are *content* no matter how they are generated, whether by postscript or bitmap. Prove otherwise in a court of law and I'll be quite amazed.
You can go on simply believing what you're told.
GJC
Re:Aaah, somebody with more than 2 braincells-GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
GJC
I haven't RTFA yet but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL is about taking an existing free work, adding to it and then giving it back to the community who owns it. If I compiled code using 'gcc' would the binary resulting then become subject to the GPL? I don't think so.
While a font isn't a tool like gcc, it's still an unmodified component used. At the very worst, you might be required to accompany the font(s) used to create the document along with the GPL agreement, but to require the document become GPL is utter ridiculousness. (Is that a word? if it's not, then I hereby copyright, trademark and patent the word.)
Okay, now I'm going to read this article, but I still think this is bullshit... this truly violates the spirit of the GPL as I do not consider a document to be a derivative work of a font any more than house is a derivative work of the paint used in coating the walls.
Geneva? New York? Remember them? (Score:4, Interesting)
The appearance of fonts can not be copyrighted in the US, which means in practice they can't be copyrighted. That's why there's lookalike fonts all over the place.
I call FUD.
Use, or embed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fonts aren't copyrightable (Score:3, Informative)
Bad example. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is probably the worst possible example. Since there is only one party, the corporation in question, involved here. The GPL would only be any kind of an issue here in the case of external communications.
It appears to make the use of GPL fonts undesirable in almost any document.
It is also relevent if the document is electronic or printed...
Misinterpretation... (Score:3, Insightful)
The intent of GPL is that you get the source, and are free to modify the source. If you do so, and distribute the result, you also get to distribute your modifications to the original source.
In the case of the font, do you use the source of the font to modify it a little bit, and distribute the results?
If you write a spreadsheet using gnumeric, does the spreadsheet become GPL? Ah, it's a separate file? but what if you print-to-ps an extract of the spreadsheet and intend to distribute that? (but not your formulas). Now your spreadsheet is sort of "linked" with the GPL stuff from gnumeric into one file. Is the separate "source" (your spreadsheet) suddenly "derived" from the gnumeric source? Come on!
What prompted the GPL was that the BSD licence allowed SUN and DEC to take BSD, fix bugs, and then sell the result. This meant that they both had to fix the same bugs separately from the "open source" people. This is a waste of time. DEC and SUN clearly had a "derived" product.
If I make a program that does something, but requires say a CRC32. I can find a GPL CRC32 source on the internet, and I'd argue that as long as I don't modify a byte in the crc32.c file, my whole directory with sources isn't suddenly a derived work of the crc32.c that I got from the internet. Similarly, if I compile it and happen to statically link the binary, all of my sources are not suddenly derived from the crc32.c I found on the internet. Now the binary still DOES contain GPL stuff. So I get to provide the LICENCE file with my software, and I need to make the crc32.c source available to anyone who asks.
Suppose I write proprietary software. Suppose I distribute it on a CD, and I decide to put a small GPL utility on the CD as well. These two are "linked" on the cd.img.iso image, right? Suddenly my million lines of code are "derived" from that simple GPL utility source code? Get reasonable!
Of course people buying the CD get the right to the source of the utility.
Of course people getting a "linked" version of your document with GPL fonts get the right to the source of the GPL font. But they don't automatically get the right to publish (modified or not) versions of your document.
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:
Re:And you say GPL isnt viral (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And you say GPL isnt viral (Score:2, Insightful)
Fine, i'll bite (Score:2)
Besides, the GPL isn't really free in a sense because it restricts you to "give", which is an admirable sentiment, but nevertheless forced upon the licensee -- sometimes in unexpected ways as with Scribus. I'd argue that this is certainly a type of restriction, making it less "Free".
Re:And you say GPL isnt viral (Score:2)
Can we stop with the uneducated FUD now, please? I
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.
Re:What's a GPLed document? (Score:2)
Re:This must be why lawyers get paid so much... (Score:3, Funny)