Project

General

Profile

Bug #797

[Parabola font] incompatible license between logo and font for embedded within a digital file due GPL font exception clause (Ghostscript license)

Anonymous - over 3 years ago - . Updated about 3 years ago.

Status:
invalid
Priority:
critical
Assignee:
-
% Done:

0%


Description

[Logotype font] replace font with that allow embedded with within a digital document file without requiring the document itself to also be shared with GPL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_font_exception
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE

History

#1

Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

  • Subject changed from [Logotype font] replace font with that allow embedded with within a digital document file without requiring the document itself to also be shared with GPL. to [Logotype font] replace font that allows embedded within a digital document file without requiring the document itself and also be shared with GPL
#2

Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

  • Subject changed from [Logotype font] replace font that allows embedded within a digital document file without requiring the document itself and also be shared with GPL to [Parabola font] incompatible license between logo and font due GPL font exception clause (Ghostscript license)
#3

Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

  • Subject changed from [Parabola font] incompatible license between logo and font due GPL font exception clause (Ghostscript license) to [Parabola font] incompatible license between logo and font for embedded within a digital file due GPL font exception clause (Ghostscript license)
#4

Updated by shackra over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from open to info needed

Sorry, but, the font isn't embedded, the text object was converted to curves, I don't think this count as embedding the font into the SVG file.

#5

Updated by mtjm over 3 years ago

The GhostPDL fonts exception is surely not enough: we want SVG too.

Why this issue has no mention of what font is currently used? Can we find a font under a compatible license without a need for exceptions?

#6

Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

mtjm wrote:

The GhostPDL fonts exception is surely not enough: we want SVG too.

Why this issue has no mention of what font is currently used? Can we find a font under a compatible license without a need for exceptions?

The font currently used is URW Gothic [0], however i added a file with font examples [1] under different licenses as suggestion, they contains a special exception as GNU FreeFont license [2] and Liberation Font license [3] but says: 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.

[0]:https://projects.parabola.nu/artwork.git/tree/logotype-color-lightbg.svg?h=official/2013#n29
[1]:https://projects.parabola.nu/partwork-community.git/plain/parabola_logo/font-example.svg
[2]:https://gnu.org/software/freefont/license.html
[3]:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:LiberationFontLicense?rd=Licensing/LiberationFontLicense

#7

Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from info needed to in progress
#8

Updated by shackra over 3 years ago

  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
#9

Updated by shackra over 3 years ago

  • % Done changed from 50 to 100
  • Status changed from in progress to fixed

I changed the font and made all the required changes for both Parabola and Talking Parabola logos. The font is Blogger sans which is under the CC BY license.

URL of the font used: http://openfontlibrary.org/en/font/blogger-sans

#11

Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

  • Assignee changed from shackra to Anonymous
  • % Done changed from 100 to 0
  • Status changed from fixed to in progress

shackra wrote:

URL of the font used: http://openfontlibrary.org/en/font/blogger-sans

Inside blogger-sans ttf file says -> Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) by Sergiy S. Tkachenko.
Otherwise, coadde is writing to Ghostscript devs a propose to change URW Gothic L font license, if they don't want do it, coadde will create a URW Gothic L clone to solve it. I told Shackra that coadde have experience on it, so i think it's better be assigned for him thought.

#12

Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

Emulatorman wrote:

shackra wrote:

URL of the font used: http://openfontlibrary.org/en/font/blogger-sans

Inside blogger-sans ttf file says -> Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) by Sergiy S. Tkachenko.
Otherwise, coadde is writing to Ghostscript devs a propose to change URW Gothic L font license, if they don't want do it, coadde will create a URW Gothic L clone to solve it. I told Shackra that coadde have experience on it, so i think it's better be assigned for him thought.

http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696190

#13

Updated by lukeshu over 3 years ago

So... a couple of things.

1. There is/was not a (copyright) license issue with the logo. The exception was for embedding the font within the document; rendering the font into the document is allowed for any font, regardless of license1. (For vectors this means each instance of a letter becomes a path; no longer a "text" node in the document. For rasters what this means is obvious.) No version of the logo ever uploaded to a Parabola server has ever had embedded fonts; they all either reference the font or render the font, never embedding it.

2. If there were a license issue, it would mean that our license should change, not the font. The base license of the URW++ core fonts is the GNU AGPL, the most holy of all the holy licenses blessed by Saint Ignucius. If there's a license conflict because of something and the AGPL being incompatible, we should change the license of the other thing, not the AGPL thing (if possible; there are of course instances were it's unfeasible to get the license changed of the non-AGPL thing).

3. On that note, switching to a CC BY-ND license is the wrong course of action, for several reasons. CC licenses with the ND option are non-Free licenses (though we allow inclusion in Parabola, as we aren't as strict on non-software works). Switching from a Free font to a non-Free font because of license compatibility is just... backwards. Plus, (pretending that license compatibility is an issue, which it isn't, see point 1) CC BY-ND (font) and CC BY-SA (logo) aren't compatible anyway! You'd have to re-license the logo anyway; and if you're going to do that, you might as well go AGPL-compatible!

4. But, I do agree that the exception on the URW++ core fonts should be changed to have exceptions for things other than just PS and PDF. (Though SVG is a bad example, because I know of no SVG renderer that actually supports embedded fonts, despite it being in the spec).

Because no one's linked them on this bug report yet, and they should be findable from here: the license statements relevant to the logo:

[1] This is true under USA, UK, Irish, Swiss, and Japanese copyright law (I can't make promises about other jurisdictions, but it's probably true elsewhere too). However, they may still be subject to "Design Patents" (in all of the jurisdictions I mentioned except for Japan). However, the URW++ core fonts are not subject to design patents, and if they were, the AGPL section 11 would guarantee a valid patent license; design patents are a moot point in the case of AGPL-licensed fonts.

#14

Updated by lukeshu over 3 years ago

(oops, I can't figure out how to delete my mis-click)

#15

Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

lukeshu wrote:

So... a couple of things.

1. There is/was not a (copyright) license issue with the logo. The exception was for embedding the font within the document; rendering the font into the document is allowed for any font, regardless of license1. (For vectors this means each instance of a letter becomes a path; no longer a "text" node in the document. For rasters what this means is obvious.) No version of the logo ever uploaded to a Parabola server has ever had embedded fonts; they all either reference the font or render the font, never embedding it.

2. If there were a license issue, it would mean that our license should change, not the font. The base license of the URW++ core fonts is the GNU AGPL, the most holy of all the holy licenses blessed by Saint Ignucius. If there's a license conflict because of something and the AGPL being incompatible, we should change the license of the other thing, not the AGPL thing (if possible; there are of course instances were it's unfeasible to get the license changed of the non-AGPL thing).

3. On that note, switching to a CC BY-ND license is the wrong course of action, for several reasons. CC licenses with the ND option are non-Free licenses (though we allow inclusion in Parabola, as we aren't as strict on non-software works). Switching from a Free font to a non-Free font because of license compatibility is just... backwards. Plus, (pretending that license compatibility is an issue, which it isn't, see point 1) CC BY-ND (font) and CC BY-SA (logo) aren't compatible anyway! You'd have to re-license the logo anyway; and if you're going to do that, you might as well go AGPL-compatible!

4. But, I do agree that the exception on the URW++ core fonts should be changed to have exceptions for things other than just PS and PDF. (Though SVG is a bad example, because I know of no SVG renderer that actually supports embedded fonts, despite it being in the spec).

Because no one's linked them on this bug report yet, and they should be findable from here: the license statements relevant to the logo:

[1] This is true under USA, UK, Irish, Swiss, and Japanese copyright law (I can't make promises about other jurisdictions, but it's probably true elsewhere too). However, they may still be subject to "Design Patents" (in all of the jurisdictions I mentioned except for Japan). However, the URW++ core fonts are not subject to design patents, and if they were, the AGPL section 11 would guarantee a valid patent license; design patents are a moot point in the case of AGPL-licensed fonts.

The FSF-recommended GPL font exception, with GPL replaced with AGPL says "unaltered portions of this font into the document", what means it? why are font letters made in vector and/or bitmap? is invalided a license when font letters are converted to vector and/or bitmap? is the same one when a drawing is converted to bitmap -> vector -> document -> bitmap?

#16

Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

coadde wrote:

lukeshu wrote:

So... a couple of things.

1. There is/was not a (copyright) license issue with the logo. The exception was for embedding the font within the document; rendering the font into the document is allowed for any font, regardless of license1. (For vectors this means each instance of a letter becomes a path; no longer a "text" node in the document. For rasters what this means is obvious.) No version of the logo ever uploaded to a Parabola server has ever had embedded fonts; they all either reference the font or render the font, never embedding it.

2. If there were a license issue, it would mean that our license should change, not the font. The base license of the URW++ core fonts is the GNU AGPL, the most holy of all the holy licenses blessed by Saint Ignucius. If there's a license conflict because of something and the AGPL being incompatible, we should change the license of the other thing, not the AGPL thing (if possible; there are of course instances were it's unfeasible to get the license changed of the non-AGPL thing).

3. On that note, switching to a CC BY-ND license is the wrong course of action, for several reasons. CC licenses with the ND option are non-Free licenses (though we allow inclusion in Parabola, as we aren't as strict on non-software works). Switching from a Free font to a non-Free font because of license compatibility is just... backwards. Plus, (pretending that license compatibility is an issue, which it isn't, see point 1) CC BY-ND (font) and CC BY-SA (logo) aren't compatible anyway! You'd have to re-license the logo anyway; and if you're going to do that, you might as well go AGPL-compatible!

4. But, I do agree that the exception on the URW++ core fonts should be changed to have exceptions for things other than just PS and PDF. (Though SVG is a bad example, because I know of no SVG renderer that actually supports embedded fonts, despite it being in the spec).

Because no one's linked them on this bug report yet, and they should be findable from here: the license statements relevant to the logo:

[1] This is true under USA, UK, Irish, Swiss, and Japanese copyright law (I can't make promises about other jurisdictions, but it's probably true elsewhere too). However, they may still be subject to "Design Patents" (in all of the jurisdictions I mentioned except for Japan). However, the URW++ core fonts are not subject to design patents, and if they were, the AGPL section 11 would guarantee a valid patent license; design patents are a moot point in the case of AGPL-licensed fonts.

The FSF-recommended GPL font exception, with GPL replaced with AGPL says "unaltered portions of this font into the document", what means it? why are font letters made in vector and/or bitmap? is invalided a license when font letters are converted to vector and/or bitmap? is the same one when a drawing is converted to bitmap -> vector -> document -> bitmap?

I read about Font Licensing article by David "Novalis" Turner [0] that could respond your question better.

Otherwise i paid attention the artwork made by Shackra was a font rendering, not embedding. Also, the current version of Inkscape seems not yet possible to embed SVG fonts and there aren't modifications since 0.47 [1], there is better explanation about it made by Paolo Gibellini [2]

Therefore, IFAIK the exception clause is like Luke Shumaker says "The exception was for embedding the font within the document; rendering the font into the document is allowed for any font, regardless of license. (For vectors this means each instance of a letter becomes a path; no longer a "text" node in the document. For rasters what this means is obvious.) No version of the logo ever uploaded to a Parabola server has ever had embedded fonts; they all either reference the font or render the font, never embedding it."

However, i do agree that the exception on the URW++ core fonts should be changed to you recommendation which is switch to the FSF-recommended GPL font
exception for other cases, not just for PS and PDF.

[0]:https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkscape#Version_history
[2]:https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/43300/embedding-fonts-in-inkscape/43323#43323

#17

Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from in progress to invalid
#18

Updated by Anonymous about 3 years ago

  • Project changed from 7 to Branding

Also available in: Atom PDF