ping?
On 09:57 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote:
Hi Bardaqani,
sorry for not being clear on this for the first time.
The problem with GPL licensed font is that when you for example create PDF file (like a book) the you usually embed the font inside the document and then is anyone able to see it correct even when he does not have the Kurdish font in system (really good thing).
But: When you have used GPL font (like Unikurd Web) inside PDF file then you must license the file/book as a GPL too! And that's the problem.
Because of this there's special Font Exception which solves that problem.
What would help us a lot:
Re-license the fonts from 'GPLv3' to 'GPLv3 + exception'. Here's the link to such text: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
Write the text from the above link to the file gpl.txt inside unikurdweb.zip file.
Solving points 1. and 2. will help us to distribute Your font in Fedora and thus helpfull for Kurdish writing/speaking users in general.
Don't hesitate and write me in case of another questions or if you need any further guidance.
Thank you, Michal
On 23:43 Tue 15 Jul , bardaqani bardaqani wrote:
Dear Michal, How can help you? should we out the license inside a PDF or what? let me know
cheers
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, mnowak@redhat.com wrote:
<div dir='rtl' style='direction: rtl; text-align: right' align='right'>.Hi, I wish I package some Unikurd fonts to Fedora Linux distribution<br /> <br /> The problem is actually the chosen license, which is plain GPLv3. Here you can read why is the license not so well usable for usage e.g. inside PDF. <br /> <br /> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException <br /> <br /> Please reply to my email mnowak@redhat.com for further information or point me to someone whom can I talk to. <br /> <br /> Thank you for you time,<br /> Michal Nowak<br /> <br /> Michal Nowak uid:0<br /> <br /> 2008-07-15<br /> </div>
Hi Michal,
Many thanks for sending those (and CC-ing the list). Many thanks to Martin-Gomez Pablo for doing the same. I know it's not exciting work (but it is necessary).
If upstream does not answer after a while we of course still have the option to package those fonts under GPL without exception. That sucks for PDF and other font embedding users but GPL without exception fonts are allowed in the distribution.
Regards,
What are the implications of a GPL'd pdf? Having to give the (LaTeX or whatever) source? Having to allow others to modify said source?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
Hi Michal,
Many thanks for sending those (and CC-ing the list). Many thanks to Martin-Gomez Pablo for doing the same. I know it's not exciting work (but it is necessary).
If upstream does not answer after a while we of course still have the option to package those fonts under GPL without exception. That sucks for PDF and other font embedding users but GPL without exception fonts are allowed in the distribution.
Regards,
-- Nicolas Mailhot
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Le Mer 23 juillet 2008 13:00, Vasile Gaburici a écrit :
What are the implications of a GPL'd pdf? Having to give the (LaTeX or whatever) source? Having to allow others to modify said source?
I think the implications are mostly you can not tell someone "here is my pdf document, you can look at it but I don't allow you to pass it to someone else".
In many use cases this is not what the pdf creator wants when choosing to embed a font in a random document.
What all that means is that vanilla GPL is a bad font license, and the FSF has yet to spend the time to write an authoritative font license. SIL did and that's why we recommend the OFL to font projects, even though I'm personnaly not comfortable with all SIL choices. But it beats the legal mess GPL font projects can become (Liberation is a good example of this).
Junk licensing : - Bistream Vera - Liberation (one-shot licenses with little thought to reuse, good enough for shipping in Fedora but not really suitable for reuse by new projects)
Software licenses bent out of shape to sort of apply to fonts - GPL + font exception - GUST license either way the result is not too convincing. Having to deal with licenses is bad enough without needing to sieve through difficult to read patched licenses.
Font-oriented licenses: - OFL - DSL (marginal use) The OFL has clearly been written with the font context in mind, and for this reason is much better than all of the above (and we recommend it). Its main faults are not in the execution, but in the balance between original author and downstream rights. It's not as symmetrical as GPL is for software.
The LGPL seems not to suffer from the GPL problems when applied to fonts (but I've not done a deep analysis, IANAL). Strangely enough it's rarely used and Free Software oriented projects seem to prefer the GPL, which forces us to do the "please add the FSF font exception" circus.
Regards,
Le Mer 23 juillet 2008 13:47, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
The LGPL seems not to suffer from the GPL problems when applied to fonts (but I've not done a deep analysis, IANAL). Strangely enough it's rarely used and Free Software oriented projects seem to prefer the GPL, which forces us to do the "please add the FSF font exception" circus.
(Of course the LGPL would still force people to do things like "here is a pdf, if you want to look at the sources of the fonts it uses I can make them available". Probably not what a lot of people want)
Hello.
Can you please reply on this license change, or can you kindly give me a contact to someone, who might be helpful on discussing this addition to GPLv3?
Thank you, Michal Nowak
----- "Michal Nowak" mnowak@redhat.com wrote:
ping?
On 09:57 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote:
Hi Bardaqani,
sorry for not being clear on this for the first time.
The problem with GPL licensed font is that when you for example create PDF file (like a book) the you usually embed the font inside the document and then is anyone able to see it correct even when he does not have the Kurdish font in system (really good
thing).
But: When you have used GPL font (like Unikurd Web) inside PDF file
then you must license the file/book as a GPL too! And that's the problem.
Because of this there's special Font Exception which solves that problem.
What would help us a lot:
Re-license the fonts from 'GPLv3' to 'GPLv3 + exception'. Here's the link to such text: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
Write the text from the above link to the file gpl.txt inside unikurdweb.zip file.
Solving points 1. and 2. will help us to distribute Your font in Fedora and thus helpfull for Kurdish writing/speaking users in general.
Don't hesitate and write me in case of another questions or if you need any further guidance.
Thank you, Michal
On 23:43 Tue 15 Jul , bardaqani bardaqani wrote:
Dear Michal, How can help you? should we out the license inside a PDF or what? let me know
cheers
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, mnowak@redhat.com wrote:
<div dir='rtl' style='direction: rtl; text-align: right'
align='right'>.Hi,
I wish I package some Unikurd fonts to Fedora Linux
distribution<br />
<br /> The problem is actually the chosen license, which is plain
GPLv3. Here you
can read why is the license not so well usable for usage e.g.
inside PDF.
<br /> <br /> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
<br /> > > > <br /> > > > Please reply to my email mnowak@redhat.com for further information or > > > point me to someone whom can I talk to. <br /> > > > <br /> > > > Thank you for you time,<br /> > > > Michal Nowak<br /> > > > <br /> > > > Michal Nowak uid:0<br /> > > > <br /> > > > 2008-07-15<br /> > > > </div> > > >
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
-
Michal Nowak -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Vasile Gaburici