Hello!
I am interested in packaging the Hack Font for Fedora, but I notice that it seems to have what may be a custom license:
https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Is this license acceptable for Fedora?
This would seem to be problematic:
(3) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself.
On 22 March 2017 at 10:11, Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hello!
I am interested in packaging the Hack Font for Fedora, but I notice that it seems to have what may be a custom license:
https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Is this license acceptable for Fedora? _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:25 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
This would seem to be problematic:
(3) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself.
I thought that at first as well, but the Bitstream Vera license[0] is listed as a good license for Fedora[1] and it contains a similar clause.
[0] https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses_4
On 03/22/2017 10:27 AM, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:25 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
This would seem to be problematic:
(3) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself.
I thought that at first as well, but the Bitstream Vera license[0] is listed as a good license for Fedora[1] and it contains a similar clause.
IANAL, but there is a difference.
Bitstream says you can sell the package by itself, but not any of the individual fonts.
Hack Open Font says you can't sell the package by itself either.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:25:29AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
This would seem to be problematic:
(3) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself.
That is a type of limitation, the most notorious historical example of which was in the SunRPC license. It *should* be problematic, and if this were a license for software hopefully we'd treat it as problematic.
But there is a sort of unwritten principle in free software and open source that such restrictions are acceptable in font licenses. One completely unsatisfying attempt to justify this (which ought to apply to software licenses like SunRPC too), the 'Hello World' excuse, is found at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SILOFL
The real reason why these things are tolerated in font licenses is pure (historical) unacknowledged expediency. Notice that a similar condition is in the Bitstream Vera license too. So be it.
Richard
On 22 March 2017 at 10:11, Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hello!
I am interested in packaging the Hack Font for Fedora, but I notice that it seems to have what may be a custom license:
https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Is this license acceptable for Fedora? _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Is it worth trying to be stricter on that front?
On Mar 22, 2017 10:34 AM, "Richard Fontana" rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:25:29AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
This would seem to be problematic:
(3) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself.
That is a type of limitation, the most notorious historical example of which was in the SunRPC license. It *should* be problematic, and if this were a license for software hopefully we'd treat it as problematic.
But there is a sort of unwritten principle in free software and open source that such restrictions are acceptable in font licenses. One completely unsatisfying attempt to justify this (which ought to apply to software licenses like SunRPC too), the 'Hello World' excuse, is found at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SILOFL
The real reason why these things are tolerated in font licenses is pure (historical) unacknowledged expediency. Notice that a similar condition is in the Bitstream Vera license too. So be it.
Richard
On 22 March 2017 at 10:11, Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Hello!
I am interested in packaging the Hack Font for Fedora, but I notice that it seems to have what may be a custom license:
https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Is this license acceptable for Fedora? _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:36:24AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
Is it worth trying to be stricter on that front?
I think the me of ~5 years ago would probably have said yes...
I would assume it would not be practical to act against well established font licenses like SIL OFL or Bitstream Vera, but maybe those could be reluctantly grandfathered in and newer licenses could be scrutinized more carefully?
On Mar 22, 2017 10:34 AM, "Richard Fontana" rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:25:29AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
This would seem to be problematic:
(3) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself.
That is a type of limitation, the most notorious historical example of which was in the SunRPC license. It *should* be problematic, and if this were a license for software hopefully we'd treat it as problematic.
But there is a sort of unwritten principle in free software and open source that such restrictions are acceptable in font licenses. One completely unsatisfying attempt to justify this (which ought to apply to software licenses like SunRPC too), the 'Hello World' excuse, is found at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SILOFL
The real reason why these things are tolerated in font licenses is pure (historical) unacknowledged expediency. Notice that a similar condition is in the Bitstream Vera license too. So be it.
Richard
On 22 March 2017 at 10:11, Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Hello!
I am interested in packaging the Hack Font for Fedora, but I notice that it seems to have what may be a custom license:
https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Is this license acceptable for Fedora? _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:33 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
The real reason why these things are tolerated in font licenses is pure (historical) unacknowledged expediency. Notice that a similar condition is in the Bitstream Vera license too. So be it.
So if the third condition is acceptable, what is the overall verdict on the license? May I package it for Fedora?
There is an issue requesting Hack to use a different license with some discussion about the license:
https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/issues/209
It sounds like they are not able to change their license without agreement from their upstreams.
On 04/18/2017 11:33 AM, Randy Barlow wrote:
There is an issue requesting Hack to use a different license with some discussion about the license:
https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/issues/209
It sounds like they are not able to change their license without agreement from their upstreams.
Given that there is an effort going with people I know and trust at Google (hi Dave!) to try to get off this license, I'll go ahead and allow the Hack Open Font License in Fedora.
~tom
== Red Hat
-
Randy Barlow -
Randy Barlow -
Richard Fontana -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Stuart Gathman -
Tom Callaway