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.
While I would like to see clarification, this seems like an attack on the GPL...
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
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.
From the GPL Faq
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)
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
Using a GPL-ed font in a document would be just like using a GPL-ed IDE, I would think. Why would the license of the tools affect the license of the finished product?
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
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:
There are some things that the GPL should stay out of. This is a perfect case to demonstrate that the GPL is not the perfect solution for every situation. Hopefully this is a wake up call for all those who treat the GPL as gospel. Back to the drawing board for RMS, I suppose.....
If you think it's bad that using certain fonts makes your documents 'open' -- then watch out for those GPL'd words! If you use words like "open," "free," or "fair" or phrases like "as in speech" or "as in beer" then your document will also fall under GPL licensing!
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."
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
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?
So if I encrypt using GPG, does that mean all my e-mails are covered by the GPL? Yikes.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
They would be more of an idiot than SCO and MS combined.
And I don't say this as a troll.
A little off-the-wall here:
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.
Why not use the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for fonts? Wouldn't that solve the problem?
So somebody clear this up for me. I'm a graphic designer, and in the past have enjoyed the Bitstream Vera line of GPL fonts, though usually I find them too 'plain' to use in much design at all.
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.
This is just another example of why using the GPL for content other than programs is a bad idea.
It's easy. About 90% of it translates roughly to "Please bend over."
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.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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
I haven't looked at the Scribus format, but very few programs encapsulate the actual font data inside a document. In essence, most word processors include pointers to a given font, but if you don't have the font on your system, it doesn't magically just show up. Instead, you get a replacement font mapping.
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.
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.
Simply stated, it appears that using GPL-licensed fonts in a document makes your document subject to the GPL.
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.
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.
You are talking about the restrictive part of the license, but you are omitting the fact that the GPL is above all a free license.
In the case of a document, it says that anyone who is given the document is allowed to copy and redistribute it, and to modify it and distribute the modified version, granted that he keeps the original copyright notice and the GPL license.
This is a lot more freedom than that given by basic copyright law.
Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
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.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Would just about cover it
Though i doubt its needed , as honestly is the font not a dependancy of the document viewer and has very little to do with the actual document
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Chuck Bigelow's history of Times Roman is a great document, and I should have included it along with Linotype's. Bigelow & Holmes did a number of important computer fonts, such as Lucida.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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.
I remember an early version of yacc was GPLed (GPL v1 from memory). That included the boiler-plate code which it inserted into your program, which means every parser built using it was using GPLed code.
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.
I am not a lawyer. Go see one if you need advice.
... and copy and distribute such modifications ..." (Paragraph 2).
... provided that you also do one of the following...."
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.
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.
the end-user would have to commit copyright infringement when linking the code
Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is use. It's not copying.
By your estimate, we all commit copyright violations every time we fire up a program in Windows and it gets copied into RAM, or linked to proprietary Microsoft libraries. Hell, by this estimation, reverse engineering is illegal.
Even though the MS EULA says it gives you permission to make copies of the software in RAM for the purpose of using the software, that's not what gives you this ability. Fair use is what gives you the right to use software you've purchased, just like fair use gives you the right to copy music onto a different format (or to listen to it on players with skip protection), or run ROMs of games that you own in an emulator. CDs don't come with license agreements, do they?
This is only bolstered by the fact that you haven't actually distributed it to anyone else in any of these circumstances. It's all internal, therefore there isn't even a cause of action. Copyright doesn't even apply.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
IANAL, but here goes:
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
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
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.
I understand patents quite well. Please see my petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01 for more information. The petition was written by myself, RMS and a few others.
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.
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
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?
why is anyone even talking about this?
the idea that using a gpl font in your document somehow makes *what you write* a derivative work of the font and therefore subject to the gpl is absolute unadulterated uninformed utter nonsense of the worst kind.
if you embed an actual, useable, copyrighted font file into your "document" along with what you wrote, then yes there may be restrictions on distributing it. this has nothing to do with whether it is gpl or not, it applies to any copyrighted font file. in fact, this just shows an *advantage* of using gpl fonts, because you are much more free to distribute them than you would be with a commercial copyrighted font.
either way it has absolutely nothing to do with what you wrote in the document. no-one ever gains any right to distribute or copy your text because you used a certain font, gpl or otherwise.
i'm getting awfully tired of hearing people talk about the gpl as though it can force them to do or not do things that normal copyright wouldn't. gpl starts from the baseline of copyright, and gives away certain rights to the public. by definition, it is always less restrictive than "all rights reserved" copyright. anything you can do with normal copyrighted material, you can do with gpl material.
the idea that the gpl "appears to make the use of GPL fonts undesirable in almost any document", as compared to the use of "all rights reserved" fonts, is the most outright looney thing i've heard on slashdot since... well maybe yesterday...
nothing to see here... move along.
Apple Geneva, the Helvetica take-off? All the other Apple "city" fonts? All the versions of Courier, Letter Gothic, and of course Helvetica again and again and again?
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.
I wish there was that moderation category, because that's what the parent is.
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, blank CDs or DVDs, postage if applicable, and the like". You can sell GPL licensed software if you want to, for any price you want to ask. But you have to include the source, and your customers have the right to distribute the software and its modification further, and even charge for it.
But anyway, if your internal software leaked out somehow, it wouldn't be consideted legal distribution, so you would not be required to distribute the source.
AccountKiller
Font's are not programs. :)
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
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
No, I wasn't. I was referring to how the current GPL 2.0 operates. Not to things which are merely being considered for GPL 3.0. ./ is so full of FUD these days, it's almost funny. :)
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
After looking at the font exception they mentioned, it looks to me as though this only applies if you embed the font in your document. Simply using the font doesn't trigger the source requirement, and the exemption would mean that embedding the font doesn't trigger the requirement either.
But I thought, much to the chagrin of Adobe et pals, that U.S. Courts had repeatedly denied font copyrightability. While fonts are often patented, and the code used to generate the letters can be copyrighted, the letterforms themselves are not copyrighted. And if no copyright resides in the letters, the GPL is toothless, isn't it?
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.