Hack Open Font License

[Randy Barlow]

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?

[Stephen John Smoogen]

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  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 -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[Randy Barlow]

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

[Stuart Gathman]

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.

[Richard Fontana]

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  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 -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> -- 
> Stephen J Smoogen.
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[Tom Callaway]

Is it worth trying to be stricter on that front?

On Mar 22, 2017 10:34 AM, "Richard Fontana"  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
>
> 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 -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> >
> > --
> > Stephen J Smoogen.
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[Richard Fontana]

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"  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
> >
> > 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 -- [e-mail]
> > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen J Smoogen.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> >
> > legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[Randy Barlow]

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?

[Randy Barlow]

Is the hack license acceptable for Fedora?

[Randy Barlow]

On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:33 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Notice that a similar
> condition is in the Bitstream Vera license too. So be it.

Should I interpret this to mean that the Hack license is acceptable for
Fedora?

[Randy Barlow]

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.

[Tom Callaway]

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]

On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 11:53 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> 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.

Fantastic, thanks!