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

[rebeka thomas]

Exactly. Look at the font faq regarding font face copyrightability.

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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people around here completely fail to READ what is written? From that FAQ:

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.

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.

Seems a little silly to me.

[Future Man 3000]

Just my opinion, but a document isn't a program, and when you distribute a document you are ipso fatso distributing the source (or everything you need to "compile and run" the document.)

While I would like to see clarification, this seems like an attack on the GPL...

I'm not sure thats right...

[Artega VH]

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)

Re:I'm not sure thats right...

[Artega VH]

After reading my own comment I think I see the problem...

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...

Doesn't make sense

[TelJanin]

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?

Not to mention GPL'd words

[LuxFX]

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."

Re:Why not...

[vt0asta]

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.

Why do you hate America?

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...

[StuffJustHappens]

All your (upper and lower) case are belong to us!?