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?
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Fonts have a whole bunch of bizarre rules covering the intellectual property involved with them,
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.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
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.