Slashdot Mirror
Unintended Consequences of Using GPL Fonts
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.
I thought that using GPL fonts only make your document's presentation subject to the GPL, since fonts only change presensation of the information but not the information itself.
So isn't it the case either you can use the fonts, or not.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
How does this effect "internal corporate communications"? It is my understanding that you are allowed to use and modify GPL licensed software *internally* without having to release your changes.
This sounds a lot more like the usual Slashdot panic-attack than anything actually factual, and unlike the SCO case I think testing this in court would result in a significant weakening of the GPL. That said, if we assume for the moment that this is the case, I would pay a metric fuckton of money to hear Stallman try and defend it.
--Ryv
Fonts are programs, as odd as that may sound. Postscript fonts are the obvious examples here, but Truetype fonts are also interpreted bytecode.
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.
Extensions to the font or the typeface family should be covered by the GPL. For example, if I extend a GPL'd font by adding additional characters I should have to respect the GPL.
The GPL should not have anything to do with the text that I have happened to render in a GPL'd font.
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:
Cmon, boys, you missed April 1st by a good 16 days, now...
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?
Well, it would be nice to be able to distrbute a confidential document with GPL fonts, it would also be nice to distribute one without the GPL (for example a one page letter would be real awkward with a long liscense attached.
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.).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
They would be more of an idiot than SCO and MS combined.
And I don't say this as a troll.
The GPL simply codifies that you must give to recieve. Why do you think BSD has been outpaced by Linux/GPL?
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Why not use the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for fonts? Wouldn't that solve the problem?
This is just another example of why using the GPL for content other than programs is a bad idea.
Most documents (eg, OpenOffice and MS Office formats) simply say which font to use. They do not actually include the font itself. This is no different from an IDE including a little "Created in XXXX" comment in the source code.
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 the document, then you might be distributing without source code. But if it's being used for intra-company memos, this action still doesn't violate the GPL. If you were using it in something like a promotional flyer, then the GPL has been violated - but HOW would you possibly know?
It seems like the only way this part could be violated would be practically undetectable.
The font is defined as "the Program" in the GPL - therefore if you modify the font your work is subject to GPL. The document is not.
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
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
From this point view, a font file is a kind of macro set, or, a program about drawing. The documents it produces should be not related to GPL. Like you dont need to open your data even it produced by a GPL program. Unless someone wants to use font files to their software applications.
GPL refers to derived work. It is foolish to believe that text that written in a word processor is a derived work from the font that is used. Written text is not derived from a font. Text is derived from thought processes in the author's brain. Chage the font - the message will still come across, the message is there even without the font. The font has nothing to do with the text, whether it is distributed with the document or not. It has as much to do with the content in the document as the color of the reader's glasses.
I'll defend it. If it's my font, in that I hold the copyright, I can impose whatever conditions I like on you distributing documents made of it.
Unfortunately, not quite true. Checking the font FAQ, 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.
This sounds like complete and utter FUD.
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.
You just told the OP they write complete and utter rubbish, then go on to agree unequivocally with them.
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.
It may be widely agreed, but I'm not sure I agree with it. If I wrote a book, and found out that an organization was photocopying it using it as a training manual for their employees, I would be hopping mad. You're saying copying computer programs is different. But what makes them different?
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.
.ZIP file and send it to you, without making all files GPLed, just because there was some GPL software there.
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 distribute them together.
It is wrong to claim that the document with embedded fonts is a derivative work based on the fonts. It is simply a container than contains my work and the fonts. Similarly to how I can pack my whole HDD to a
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
There are a lot of consequences here, such as internal corporate communications.
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...
In the INTERPRETATION of the normal GPL someone decided that "derived work" would include linked-binaries. Even if say you just included a verbatim copy of a certain GPL library function.
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.