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.

Comments

Presensation

[fembots]

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.

Re:Presensation

[williamhb]

A) This all fails the reasonable expectation test. It's not a contract if one of the parties could not reasonably have known what they were agreeing to. Or some technical interpretation of it. (The "reasonable person" using a font is not a computer expert, but an average joe with a wordprocessor)

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. ..from A and B we can conclude...

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

[potentiallyprofound]

"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. ..from A and B we can conclude..." Sure, a text file is probably not going to be a derivative of the font, but how about a logo, or a poster layout, or an advertisement? In graphic design, at least in my experience, it would be very easy to argue that the final design itself is a derivative of the style of the font.

Re:Presensation

[InvalidError]

Fonts are somewhat like a document's core library.

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.

Internal?

[HRbnjR]

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.

Re:Internal?

[Cylix]

Yeah,

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.

Re:Seems a little silly to me.

[cbiffle]

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.

Re:And you say GPL isnt viral

[El Cubano]

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:

• Use a different license (BSD, CC, Artistic, etc.)
• Support the creation of a GNU Free Font License (possibly based on the LGPL)
• Or just use the LGPL (though, I am not sure if this solves all of the issues).

How does this differ...

[pla]

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?

If anyone tries to enforce this

[duncan]

They would be more of an idiot than SCO and MS combined.

And I don't say this as a troll.

Why not...

[bmac83]

Why not use the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for fonts? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Re:Why not...

[Nimrangul]

Or even better, since it's just a damned font anyways, put it under the god damned public domain so anyone can use it without restrictions.

I mean, come on, it's a damned font.

Re:Why not...

[Holi]

Then sell them, but the parent is right, GPL does not really make sense for fonts. Make them free or not but don't make me worry that the font I used may affect the rights I have to the work I produced.

Re:Why not...

[dr.badass]

I mean, come on, it's a damned font.

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...

[dr.badass]

I have to agree, the largest failing of Linux (and Java for that matter) is a good set of fonts. Why not make a bunch of truely Public Domain fonts so everyone can use them?

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...

[dr.badass]

Simple solution: Make the font GPL, but if you use it in documentation, it's not subject to GPL, only if the font's used in a program like Scribus, Word, Open Office, and so forth.

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.

The GPL is written to protect programs...

[Husgaard]

...not other content like fonts.

This is just another example of why using the GPL for content other than programs is a bad idea.

No no no.

[BillsPetMonkey]

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

Derived work

[claes]

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.

Not quite the case...

[BobPaul]

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.

Ummm

[Amiga Lover]

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.