Why a (L)GPL Font Should Not Be Relicensed Under OFL
Recently there has been discussion, sparked by the recent Betatype Ubuntu Titling release, to advocate that Canonical relicense the Ubuntu font, probably under the Open Font License.
I think the Ubuntu font distributed by Canonical ought to be relicensed because the plain LGPL is not an appropriate license for font software.
The immediate problem is that Canonical does not distribute the FontForge source code (the SFD file) of this font, and I think it ought to so that redistributors can fulfill their LGPL obligations to provide source :-)
At a glance, the plain LGPL is a little similar to the typical free software font release: The normal GPL with an additional permission for embedding the font software in documents like PDFs, as specified and recommended by the FSF. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
However, the differences are important. Although I think a non-LGPL PDF program can “link” to a LGPL font program embedded inside it, I’m unsure if the PDF will work if the font data embedded in it is modified, and so the terms of the LGPL are unmet. Additionally, anyone redistributing a PDF that uses a LGPL font is required to provide complete source code for the font.
The OFL does not have these document complications since it is clearly stated in section 5:
5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and must not be distributed under any other license. The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software.
However, I am lately a little wary of the OFL because it does not require developers to provide the complete source code. As build scripts and other information discarded from a compiled font object code file are now important to the development of a font, I think it is important that free font licenses have strong copylefts like the GPL.
The OFL is suitable for recommending to proprietary font developers who are warming to the idea of releasing their font software as free software. It is less suitable for free software developers who release font software and are comfortable publishing under the GPL.
I recommend that Canonical relicenses the Ubuntu font under the GPL with the Font Permission, and I would support Canonical if it relicenses the Ubuntu font under the LGPL with the Font Permission, or under the OFL.
Canonical often bi- or tri-licenses works when there is uncertainty about which license will be most beneficial. I think that generally, bi/tri-licensing is shortsighted free culture strategy because it permits splinter forks that cannot be recombined. One aspect of the GPL’s popularity is that it ensures splinters can be combined and grows the commons.
I won’t criticise Canonical if it does this, but I criticise the problem of bi/tri-licensing in general, and currently use Creative Commons works that get splintered as examples.
The recent comments at the Betatype blog by Christian, the font developer, are typical of font developers’ unfamiliarity with the norms of the free software community.
A point of interest for me is that he included incomplete build scripts, and said when this was queried, “I thought I’d throw the build script in there for anyone who was interested. As Gustavo says, it’s not really necessary.”
As I understand the LGPL, it is neccessary for LGPL fonts, which I’ve explained in depth in another post.
The Why a (L)GPL Font Should Not Be Relicensed Under OFL by David Crossland, except the quotations and unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Comments
Leave a Reply
