For approval: SIL Open Font License 1.1
bruce at perens.com
Mon Nov 10 01:18:52 UTC 2008
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> What I'm asking it how other FLOSS licenses currently used for fonts deal with embedding of fonts in documents?
From a legal perspective, it's just like linking code into a larger
program to create a derivative work. Lots of licenses deal with that.
The other related issue is making aggregate distributions of various
pieces that are not derivative works of each other. This too is a
familiar issue in current licenses.
> OK but this is not how it may be read by many.
I think David could have explained the part around "might" better by
adding an example. David's paragraph is probably stronger in its effect
on a judge than the novice might perceive it on first reading, if that
novice is confused by "might". Your text is so far going to be weaker in
its effect on a judge than the novice would perceive it on first reading.
If we are arguing issues of embedding here, expect to see them argued in
court too, at great expense to some poor developer. To protect your
community, your license must be written to settle arguments rather than
create them as much as possible. So, you really need to walk through
situations you don't appear to have considered entirely, view them with
more pessimism than you have - because the judge isn't necessarily
sympathetic to you, and make sure your license handles them.
> How about the problem for users that they need to know that their
> freedom to use their choice of content license may be affected by a
> designer wishing to drop the exception in a downstream branch?
Yes, that's true. The fact that you have this license for this version
doesn't guarantee that all versions are under the same license.
A similar example with your license is that the copyright holder of the
font has a right to distribute commercial versions of the same font, or
a similar one, with different licensing. The copyright holder is not
compelled to always use your license. And someone else can use the name
of your font for something entirely different from your font and not
under your license, unless you trademark the font name, register the
trademark, and prosecute infringement.
> How impractical is it to check each time that the particular branch of the font software you happen to use still has the exception? [...] IMHO too many scenarios to imagine for a clear model for both users and font designers....
So, what you are saying here is that you don't want to compel people to
distribute source. I approve. Just say something like this, but have a
lawyer make sure it's the right way to say it:
1. This font may be used and distributed without limitation while it is
embedded in a document.
2. When this font, or information derived from this font, is embedded in
a document, other information in the document that is unrelated to this
font shall not be considered to be a derivative work of this font. For
example, embedding this font in a document does not make the text of the
document a derivative work of this font.
This gives people unlimited right to embed fonts and use the result
while not giving them a chance to get out of the license by extracting
> But a @font-face stanza is still referencing an external font.
Except in email. In that case, everything's a MIME attachment in the
More information about the License-review