[Bug 861531] New: Restore GPL licensing option

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861531

            Bug ID: 861531
        QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
          Severity: unspecified
           Version: rawhide
          Priority: unspecified
                CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
                    i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
                    petersen(a)redhat.com, psatpute(a)redhat.com
          Assignee: psatpute(a)redhat.com
           Summary: Restore GPL licensing option
        Regression: ---
      Story Points: ---
    Classification: Fedora
                OS: Unspecified
          Reporter: luke-jr+redhatbugs(a)utopios.org
              Type: Bug
     Documentation: ---
          Hardware: Unspecified
        Mount Type: ---
            Status: NEW
         Component: liberation-fonts
           Product: Fedora

Description of problem: The SIL "Open Font License" is not really free.
Previous versions of Liberation fotns were available under the free GPL-2 (with
exceptions) license.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.0


How reproducible: Always.


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Consider the freedom to sell the font by itself.
2. Realize the OFL license forbids it.
3. Since freedom to sell is forbidden, such a license is non-free.

Actual results: Liberation fonts 2.0 are non-free.


Expected results: Liberation fonts 2.0 are free, like earlier versions.


Additional info: Licenses do not need to be exclusive. I suggest giving the
choice of either license.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 861531] Restore GPL licensing option

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861531

--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>  Description of problem: The SIL "Open Font License" is not
> really free. 
It is according to both the Fedora and GNU projects.

>  1. Consider the freedom to sell the font by itself.
>  2. Realize the OFL license forbids it.
>  3. Since freedom to sell is forbidden, such a license is non-free. 
True this is a small limitation of the OFL.
Why do you want to sell a copy of Liberation by itself?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 861531] Restore GPL licensing option

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861531

--- Comment #2 from Pravin Satpute <psatpute(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
One more point, we still have liberation-fonts-1.07.2.tar.gz available in
upstream under the Old license.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 861531] Restore GPL licensing option

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861531

--- Comment #3 from luke-jr+redhatbugs(a)utopios.org ---
I have no particular reason to sell Liberation by itself, nor to sell the
majority of software I use period. I do, however, have interest in only running
(truly) free software so I don't have to worry about these things.

The GNU project considers OFL to be "free" because they consider it acceptable
to use a loophole and bundle it with a dummy program. I consider loopholes to
be bad faith, and I have doubts that it would fly in court if it ever came down
to that.

I do still have the older Liberation version installed, but truly free fonts
seem rare and I thought the freedom was the primary motivation behind the
Liberation font family. It seems a shame to lose that.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 861531] Restore GPL licensing option

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861531

--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
Hi Luke,

While I take your point - and agree this restriction in the SIL OFL
license seems unnecessary (dunno if it was added by SIL as some
kind of protection against other profiting from their fonts?)
but as you say the "loophole" makes it pretty trivial to circumvent anyway.

But please realise that the actual old Liberation fonts licence
is rather more complicated than just GPL + licensing exception.
There are some additional terms unfortunately due to the original
arrangement made with Ascender when Red Hat bought the fonts
that have caused quite a lot of confusion in the past about the status of
Liberation license.  So to me OFL is still a big improvement
over the previous license situation.  Anyway the Liberation 2 rebase with
croscore fonts means that the license has to be OFL.

There is still some discussion ongoing about what to do with the old
Liberation fonts in Fedora.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 861531] Restore GPL licensing option

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861531

Pravin Satpute <psatpute(a)redhat.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |MODIFIED

--- Comment #5 from Pravin Satpute <psatpute(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
I respect your point of view. But in present situation it is not possible to
Restore GPL. Since community will miss lots of Enhancement like extended
coverage, better hinting. And i am sure we are moving to better license than
earlier.

There is tweak though as said here.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SILOFL

"The Open Font License (including its original release, version 1.0) is a free
copyleft license for fonts. Its only unusual requirement is that fonts be
distributed with some computer program, rather than alone. Since a simple Hello
World program will satisfy the requirement, it is harmless. Neither we nor SIL
recommend the use of this license for anything other than fonts."

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 861531] Restore GPL licensing option

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861531

Pravin Satpute <psatpute(a)redhat.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |NOTABUG
        Last Closed|                            |2012-10-17 05:39:20

--- Comment #6 from Pravin Satpute <psatpute(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
closing this, please reopen if required.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.