Bug 696190 - License proposal to use URW fonts with special exception for another embedded files as PNG, JPEG, SVG
Summary: License proposal to use URW fonts with special exception for another embedded...
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Fonts
Classification: Unclassified
Component: free URW (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P4 enhancement
Assignee: Default assignee
QA Contact: Bug traffic
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-09-11 00:16 UTC by Coadde
Modified: 2015-09-14 21:07 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Customer:
Word Size: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Coadde 2015-09-11 00:16:13 UTC
Hi all, current license for URW fonts has as special exception for embedded files, but for Postscript or PDF files only, however there are another useful embedded files that could be used under a special exception too (eg. PNG, JPEG, SVG). Therefore, i suggest use GPL font exception to solve it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
original license [0][1]:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, the font files (in Resource/Font) are distributed
under the AGPL with the following exemption:

As a special exception, permission is granted to include these font
programs in a Postscript or PDF file that consists of a document that
contains text to be displayed or printed using this font, regardless
of the conditions or license applying to the document itself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
use GPL font exception [1][2][3]:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, the font files (in Resource/Font) are distributed
under the AGPL with the following exemption:

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[0]http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE
[1]http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=tree;f=Resource/Font
[2]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLFonts
[3]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
Comment 1 Ken Sharp 2015-09-11 00:28:19 UTC
Firstly, Artifex do not own the copyright to the URW fonts they are (perhaps unsurprisingly) owned by URW.

As such Artifex cannot vary the licence *at all*.

More importantly, bitmap image formats such as JPEG and PNG do not include the font data and as such no licence exemption is required.
Comment 2 Coadde 2015-09-11 09:56:16 UTC
(In reply to Ken Sharp from comment #1)
> More importantly, bitmap image formats such as JPEG and PNG do not include
> the font data and as such no licence exemption is required.

The GhostPDL fonts exception is not enough to use it for SVG.
You're right that bitmap image formats aren't needed license exemption, but i want use it for SVG too.
Comment 3 Ken Sharp 2015-09-11 11:02:31 UTC
(In reply to Coadde from comment #2)
> (In reply to Ken Sharp from comment #1)
> > More importantly, bitmap image formats such as JPEG and PNG do not include
> > the font data and as such no licence exemption is required.
> 
> The GhostPDL fonts exception is not enough to use it for SVG.
> You're right that bitmap image formats aren't needed license exemption, but
> i want use it for SVG too.

Then I suggest you contact URW.
Comment 4 James Cloos 2015-09-14 07:54:16 UTC
Does URW++ really license them to you under agpl?

And not under the license they use for the fonts provided to the TeX community?
(Which is GPL2 || LPPL.)
Comment 5 Ken Sharp 2015-09-14 08:19:43 UTC
(In reply to James Cloos from comment #4)
> Does URW++ really license them to you under agpl?
> 
> And not under the license they use for the fonts provided to the TeX
> community?
> (Which is GPL2 || LPPL.)

Not precisely, but the upshot is that these fonts are licenced under AGPL. However, since the copyright still resides with URW, if you want the licence varied it would still require permission from URW.

So it doesn't really matter, does it ?
Comment 6 Chris Liddell (chrisl) 2015-09-14 08:27:57 UTC
(In reply to James Cloos from comment #4)
> Does URW++ really license them to you under agpl?
> 
> And not under the license they use for the fonts provided to the TeX
> community?
> (Which is GPL2 || LPPL.)

We have URW++'s permission to ship the fonts under that license, yes.

I really think this discussion should be considered closed.
Comment 7 Coadde 2015-09-14 12:03:16 UTC
(In reply to Ken Sharp from comment #5)
> (In reply to James Cloos from comment #4)
> > Does URW++ really license them to you under agpl?
> > 
> > And not under the license they use for the fonts provided to the TeX
> > community?
> > (Which is GPL2 || LPPL.)
> 
> Not precisely, but the upshot is that these fonts are licenced under AGPL.
> However, since the copyright still resides with URW, if you want the licence
> varied it would still require permission from URW.

I wrote a email for them to recommend to switch to the FSF-recommended GPL font exception [0]. Also, i opened a report about it to solve it in our distro [1].

[0]:https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2015-September/003254.html
[1]:https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/797
Comment 8 Coadde 2015-09-14 21:07:56 UTC
(In reply to Chris Liddell (chrisl) from comment #6)
> (In reply to James Cloos from comment #4)
> > Does URW++ really license them to you under agpl?
> > 
> > And not under the license they use for the fonts provided to the TeX
> > community?
> > (Which is GPL2 || LPPL.)
> 
> We have URW++'s permission to ship the fonts under that license, yes.
> 
> I really think this discussion should be considered closed.

If Artifex have URW++'s permission to ship the fonts under FSF-recommended GPL font exception, with GPL replaced with AGPL [0], so it should be shipped under that license and consider this discussion closed. :)

[0]:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException