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.

Presensation

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

Exactly. Look at the font faq [nwalsh.com] 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.

Seems a little silly to me.

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...

Re:Seems a little silly to me.

Fonts are programs, as odd as that may sound. Postscript fonts are the obvious examples here, but Truetype fonts are also interpreted bytecode.

Whether or not documents are programs is debatable, but they are information that makes a computer behave a certain way. They take interpreter software (your reader software), but then, so does Java or Perl.

So if you're sufficiently nutty (and if you're involved in interpreting the GPL, you will be), using a font in a document is a lot like linking.

Now, you're right, generally you do distribute the 'source.' However, it's possible to embed fonts into a document (in a PDF, for example) and strip out the unused characters, which wouldn't be a full copy of the source. Moreover, you could print or otherwise rasterize the document, thereby losing the font source -- which is basically equivalent to compiling the source into binaries.

IMHO, this is all really insane. But I don't release code under the GPL anyway.

XML

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.

Re:Intellectual Property for Fonts is Very Complex

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.

Re:Seems a little silly to me.

The GPL requires that you put no further limitations on the re-distribution of said document.

I'll also point out that for a LaTeX document, I'm not giving you the prefered source format. If I generated the document from LaTeX source, and gave you the PDF version with an embedded GPL'ed font, you could easily claim I didn't give you the "preferred format". If I printed the document and handed it to you, that's not in electronic format, which is against the GPL (I'd have to at the very least give you a written offer for the document in electronic format good for at least 3 years if I remember the clauses correctly).

You couldn't print Trade Secrets in a font that is GPL'ed, as it would inheriently have more limitations added to it that the GPL doesn't allow.

Personally, I think GPL'ing a font is a lot like me saying I'm GPL'ing the blueprints to my house. It doesn't make any sense. I suppose it makes some, in the context of a derived work. However, I'm fairly doubtful it'd stand up to scruity in court. It probably means you are a copyright infringer, but as a license, it's fairly incoherent when applied to a font.

Kirby

Internal?

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.

I'm not sure thats right...

From the GPL Faq [gnu.org]

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...

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...

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

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...

Actually, the important point in the FAQ you quoted is that it only applies to embedded fonts. Thus the /. blurb is completely wrong AFAICS - you can use the font without any license restrictions being imparted on your own documents provided you don't embed it in the document. So while this may be an issue if you send off artwork to a printhouse, if you don't embed the fonts but just include a copy of each font (and relevant license info) along with the artwork I'm guessing that should be fine.

Clarifying vs. Changing vs. Lawyer Paranoia

The font exception wording does clarify that using the fonts doesn't mean that all your text are belong to us. I don't see that meaningfully saying that without the exception, that you've got legal problems, though it may be useful to calm down some lawyers, especially armchair lawyers or lawyers who are already paranoid about contaminating their intellectual property.

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.

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

But the main BS angle from the writeup is this:

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.

Even if using a GPL font requires all documents using that font to be GPLed, that doesn't make your business document GPLed. It means that you cannot legally distribute your business document except under the GPL, which is very very different. If you illegally distribute your document not under the GPL, you've committed a copyright violation. That still doesn't put it under the GPL. It just means that you will have to stop publishing the document until you stop using the infringing copyrighted material, and you may be liable for the infringement you've already done. Still, the GPL has not been applied to anything you've produced.

This just means that GPLed fonts are unusable for non-GPLed documents, not that you'll accidentally GPL your document. Assuming that it's true in the first place. So stop using the unusable fonts, and you'll be fine.

I hate being a perfect test case.

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.

Doesn't make sense

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?

Re:Doesn't make sense

Far closer to a gpl-ed library, because the font is part of the finished product - the letters of the font are in the document. No ide code ends up in the finished program

Not to mention GPL'd words

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."

How does this differ...

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?

Re:How does this differ...

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.

While your analogy holds true for LGPL, it doesn't for the GPL. ANY redistribution of GPLed software is bound by the GPL & that says that any DERIVED WORKS of GPLed software must also be GPLed. Which is why coders who are writing software under a license more restrictive than the GPL avoid GPLed libraries.

GNU Privacy Guard

So if I encrypt using GPG [gnupg.org], does that mean all my e-mails are covered by the GPL? Yikes.

Derived work

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.

No, it doesn't.

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:

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

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.

Nonsense

I am not a lawyer. Go see one if you need advice.

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 ... and copy and distribute such modifications ..." (Paragraph 2).

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 ... provided that you also do one of the following...."

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.

Re:And you say GPL isnt viral

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:

• Use a different license (BSD, CC, Artistic, etc.)
• Support the creation of a GNU Free Font License (possibly based on the LGPL)
• Or just use the LGPL (though, I am not sure if this solves all of the issues).

Re:And you say GPL isnt viral

Nothing against BSD, I've made use of it, but I prefer the GPL and want to make sure things are kept clear about it.

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.