Hi,

I have a licensing related question about fonts in drupal.org distributed packages. I am not a lawyer or license expert, so I'd like some better informed people look at this.

I'm not sure if this is the right way to raise this question, I only found this forum thread, which is close to what I want to ask, but it is in deprecation mode, so I thought to start a new thread here.

Anyway, I'm the maintainer of the Image CAPTCHA module. For better usability and smoother install experience, I'd like to package a/some TTF font(s) with the module (#259219: provide a better default font for image CAPTCHA). Right now, users have to upload a TTF font separately before the module can do something sensible. It's not a real deal breaker, but now that usability gets all the hype, I thought providing a "good" default font lowers the usability barrier.

The problem is of course licensing and the Drupal.org policy regarding third party code. I found for example these pointers
http://drupal.org/node/124978, http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/2006-May/016589.html, http://drupal.org/node/66113

Two important themes in those discussion:

  1. only GPL "stuff" can go in Drupal.org CVS
  2. mirroring third party source code (which typically has its own version control system and release system) in Drupal.org CVS is a bad idea

Now, the second item is of less importance in the case of fonts, because a font typically don't get updated that often as source code, especially in the case of a font for an Image CAPTCHA.

The first item is of course more tricky, which is why I raise this question here. All those proprietary fonts and restrictively licensed fonts are out of the question, but I see three other options for the moment:

  1. The Liberation Fonts by Red Had, which have a GPL+exeption licence:
    LIBERATION font software (the "Software") consists of TrueType-OpenType formatted font software for rendering LIBERATION typefaces in sans-serif, serif, and monospaced character styles. You are licensed to use, modify, copy, and distribute the Software pursuant to the GNU General Public License v.2 with the following exceptions:

    (a) As a special exception, if you create a document which uses this font, and embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into the document, this font does not by itself cause the resulting document to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the document might be covered by the GNU General Public License. If you modify this font, you may extend this exception to your version of the font, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.

    (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the Software in a physical product must provide you the right to access and modify the source code for the Software and to reinstall that modified version of the Software in object code form on the same physical product on which you received it.

    Is it ok to redistribute a font with these exeptions to the GPL in Drupal.org package?

  2. I also found a public domain font: http://tulrich.com/fonts/ which can be used totally unrestricted:

    I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

    Is it ok to redistribute a public domain font in a GPL licenced Drupal.org package?

  3. creating a font myself, e.g. with http://fontstruct.fontshop.com or another tool, and putting it in a GPL licenced drupal.org package, just like PHP source code. I am not a professional typographic designer, so the font will be crappy and I would only do this when nothing else is possible. However, for an Image CAPTCHA it could also be a advantage that the font is a bit crappy ;).

thanks for you time

Comments

Damien Tournoud’s picture

The definitive answer can only come from the DA legal team, but the GPL+exception license seems compatible with a GPL package, as I don't believe you need to carry on the exception.

Crell’s picture

Issue tags: +Legal

Creating a font yourself is fine.

A public domain font (or any other work) may be redistributed under the GPL, so that is also fine. Noting somewhere in the source code or README file where the font comes from originally is polite, but not legally required.

The excerpt above from Red Hat is interesting. Exception B I don't think is relevant, as it would seem to apply to embedded fonts within a binary program and require you to be able to edit the font and reinstall it. Drupal, being PHP, automatically has that capability. Exception A seems to imply that the use of a GPLed font would make a document GPLed without that exception. My initial reaction is that only would make sense if the font were used in an artistic rather than descriptive fashion (eg, text as art rather than text as text), but that's an entirely arbitrary distinction on my part. Which side of that line a captcha image would fall is also debatable.

You would not be able to include the exception in Drupal's CVS, as we allow only "vanilla" GPLv2+ code in order to keep things simple. So whether or not that exception is required to keep the font from being "overly viral" is the key question. I do not know the answer to that. I'd recommend not using that font for the moment until I am able to look into the question further.

Please stand by. :-)

--Larry Garfield
Drupal Association Director of Legal Affairs

Damien Tournoud’s picture

It seems to me that exception A has a kill-switch:

If you modify this font, you may extend this exception to your version of the font, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.

Gerhard Killesreiter’s picture

Is there a reason why you can't simply provide a link where to download the font? In which format are the desired fonts available on the net?

Crell’s picture

@Damien: Yes, we can strip that exception and then include the font in CVS. My concern is that the exception is there for a reason, and seems to imply that if we did so then any documents created using that font would also be under the GPL. I don't know if that's actually the case or not, but it makes me uneasy. Hence my desire to look into it in more detail.

Gerhard Killesreiter’s picture

I think the exception is there to stress that the documents will _not_ be GPLed through use of a GPLed font, ie to reassure people who are nervous about the GPL's viral nature.

Apparently, this doesn't work for you. ;)

soxofaan’s picture

I think, Crell's concern

  • is not about the original license of the font (public domain or GPL+exception), and how that original license would allow/disallow redistribution in a drupal.org package. As far as I understand it would be ok to redistribute both the public domain font and the GPL+exception font (because of the kill switch mentioned in #3) as GPL.
  • but is about what happens after we relicense it as GPL (without exception). Without such an exception, it could lead to situations where usage of the font induces the GPL on the document it is used in, which could be undesired.

For Drupal as a content management system this is indeed valid concern. From my limited (and possibly wrong) knowledge about fonts and font licensing:

  • In case of the image CAPTCHA there is no problem then, as the "document" in this case (the CAPTCHA image) is an image with rendered glyphs from the font. The font file itself is not redistributed, so the "document" is not automatic GPL. In any case: a CAPTCHA image is typically nonsense without much (artistic) value, I don't think somebody cares how it is licensed anyway.
  • The problem is when a font is used in a PDF or PostScript file (note that PDF and PostScript are technically programming languages, not markup languages like HTML) and the font (which is also considered to be a "program") is embeded in the document. I think in those cases the viral nature of GPL kicks in.

Take magazines printed ("rendered") on paper for example: publishers can use all the fancy and most restrictively licensed font's they want, it doesn't induce any license on the paper magazine automatically. However, for distribution of electronic versions (like PDF or PostScript), they have to take font embedding rights and duties into account.

To conclude: I think there is not much problem for "rendering" modules like Image CAPTCHA or TextImage, but there are valid concerns for modules that would for example provide PDF export with embedded fonts.

(my 2 IANAL cents)

Crell’s picture

So I spoke with our attorney about this matter. According to him, there is no case law either way regarding whether or not a font would have a license impact on documents using it. As he sees it, no judge would accept such an argument anway. The Red Hat exception above is mostly just a CYA and to keep the paranoid happy.

That is, in his view putting the font into CVS under "vanilla" GPLv2 would be fine and would not cause any problems.

apaderno’s picture

Component: Drupal.org module » CVS
apaderno’s picture

I agree with what reported from soxofaan in #7; that is what I know of use of GPL licensed fonts in a document.
The use of a font in an image is like the use of a font in a document that doesn't allow to extract it; in that case it should not be a problem.

apaderno’s picture

Status: Active » Fixed

As the support request has gotten a reply, I am marking this report as fixed.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)
Issue tags: -Legal

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

Component: CVS » Other