Fwd: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

Fwd: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

[Ian Denhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 837 bytes --]

Latest word on the Symbola font from the FSF:

Forwarded message from Donald R Robertson III via RT (2015-01-14 11:15:14):
> Hello again,
> 
> Unfortunately the discussion with the author has broken down. They will
> not change the license, as they do not believe in licensing. This
> legally puts us in a bad spot. While it is unlikely that they are
> looking to sue us, the due diligence required here puts a strain our our
> limited legal counsel resources. So the question becomes: how critical
> are these files, and would we be better off simply not distributing them? 
> -- 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
> Copyright & Licensing Associate
> Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
> Boston, MA 02110, USA
> Phone +1-617-542-5942 
> Fax +1-617-542-2652
> 
> ---
> 
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=0kjC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Fwd: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ian Denhardt <ian@zenhack.net> skribis:

> Latest word on the Symbola font from the FSF:

Thanks Ian for the update.

I forgot the details, but IIRC Alex Kost was the initial submitter.
What can be done here?

Ludo’.

Re: Fwd: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

[Alex Kost]

Ludovic Courtès (2015-01-16 23:37 +0300) wrote:

> Ian Denhardt <ian@zenhack.net> skribis:
>
>> Latest word on the Symbola font from the FSF:
>
> Thanks Ian for the update.
>
> I forgot the details, but IIRC Alex Kost was the initial submitter.
> What can be done here?

Yes it was me, so if I understand correctly, Symbola font should not
appear in the distribution (because of the license problem), right?

-- 
Alex

Re: Fwd: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès (2015-01-16 23:37 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Ian Denhardt <ian@zenhack.net> skribis:
>>
>>> Latest word on the Symbola font from the FSF:
>>
>> Thanks Ian for the update.
>>
>> I forgot the details, but IIRC Alex Kost was the initial submitter.
>> What can be done here?
>
> Yes it was me, so if I understand correctly, Symbola font should not
> appear in the distribution (because of the license problem), right?

Does the license problem applies to all the files or just some?

If it makes sense, we could simply remove the offending files.

Ludo’.

Re: Fwd: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

[Alex Kost]

Ludovic Courtès (2015-01-17 19:28 +0300) wrote:

> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-01-16 23:37 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Denhardt <ian@zenhack.net> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Latest word on the Symbola font from the FSF:
>>>
>>> Thanks Ian for the update.
>>>
>>> I forgot the details, but IIRC Alex Kost was the initial submitter.
>>> What can be done here?
>>
>> Yes it was me, so if I understand correctly, Symbola font should not
>> appear in the distribution (because of the license problem), right?
>
> Does the license problem applies to all the files or just some?
>
> If it makes sense, we could simply remove the offending files.

IIUC it applies to all the files.  Quotation from
<http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/>:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
In lieu of a licence

Fonts and documents in this site are not pieces of property or merchandise items; they carry no trademark, copyright, license or other market tags; they are offered free for any use.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

-- 
Alex

Re: Fwd: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès (2015-01-17 19:28 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-01-16 23:37 +0300) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ian Denhardt <ian@zenhack.net> skribis:
>>>>
>>>>> Latest word on the Symbola font from the FSF:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Ian for the update.
>>>>
>>>> I forgot the details, but IIRC Alex Kost was the initial submitter.
>>>> What can be done here?
>>>
>>> Yes it was me, so if I understand correctly, Symbola font should not
>>> appear in the distribution (because of the license problem), right?
>>
>> Does the license problem applies to all the files or just some?
>>
>> If it makes sense, we could simply remove the offending files.
>
> IIUC it applies to all the files.  Quotation from
> <http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/>:
>
> In lieu of a licence
>
> Fonts and documents in this site are not pieces of property or merchandise items; they carry no trademark, copyright, license or other market tags; they are offered free for any use.

OK, so despite the authors intent, we can’t really use them.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

[Jason Self]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 814 bytes --]

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> wrote:

> IIUC it applies to all the files.  Quotation from
> <http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/>:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> In lieu of a licence
>
> Fonts and documents in this site are not pieces of property or 
> merchandise items; they carry no trademark, copyright, license or 
> other market tags; they are offered free for any use.
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Couldn't this be used as a statement that they're abandoning their
copyright [0]? It's been saved away on the Wayback Machine [1] for
future documentation, just in case.

[0]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonment_%28legal%29#Abandonment_of_copyright
[1]
https://web.archive.org/web/20150113144655/http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

[John Darrington]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1883 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 07:15:01AM -0800, Jason Self wrote:
     Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> wrote:
     
     > IIUC it applies to all the files.  Quotation from
     > <http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/>:
     >
     > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
     > In lieu of a licence
     >
     > Fonts and documents in this site are not pieces of property or 
     > merchandise items; they carry no trademark, copyright, license or 
     > other market tags; they are offered free for any use.
     > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
     
     Couldn't this be used as a statement that they're abandoning their
     copyright [0]? It's been saved away on the Wayback Machine [1] for
     future documentation, just in case.
     
     [0]
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonment_%28legal%29#Abandonment_of_copyright
     [1]
     https://web.archive.org/web/20150113144655/http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/


Like the wikipedia article says, in many countries jurists argue if it is 
possible to "place" copyright in the public domain.   In the UK it is utterly
impossible.  In Australia, it is explicitly provided in the Copyright Act.  In
the USA, nobody is sure.

In the case, that it is not possible, then the statement 
that "[the fonts] carry no copyright", would simply not be true.

It could become a real issue, if, say, the author dies, his hiers then decide to
 make it into a proprietary software.

I think Guix is right to take the cautious approach.  

(What actually depends on these fonts?  There are oodles of fonts today.  Can it
be substituted by something else?)


J'


-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

[Alex Kost]

John Darrington (2015-01-18 18:58 +0300) wrote:

[...]
> It could become a real issue, if, say, the author dies, his hiers then decide to
>  make it into a proprietary software.
>
> I think Guix is right to take the cautious approach.  
>
> (What actually depends on these fonts?  There are oodles of fonts today.  Can it
> be substituted by something else?)

Nothing depends on Symbola font, so it may be safely ignored.  I just
use it all the time, so I proposed this package several months ago.

-- 
Alex

[PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola.

[Alex Kost]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 444 bytes --]

This font may be useful for resolving some symbols (like  🐼, 😻) in Emacs.

I don't know what license should be used, as the only mention about the
license is the following note from <http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/>:

«In lieu of a licence: Fonts in this site are offered free for any use;
they may be opened, edited, modified, regenerated, posted, packaged and
redistributed.»

Is it OK to use "fsf-free" for this package?


[-- Attachment #2: 0001-gnu-Add-ttf-symbola.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 3342 bytes --]

From 42e291f301925f766436570fa8efabde51ef89a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 20:36:33 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola.

* gnu/packages/fonts.scm (ttf-symbola): New variable.
---
 gnu/packages/fonts.scm | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
index 7c95666..188f7b0 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2013 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2014 Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2014 Guy Grant <tadnimi@gnu.org>
+;;; Copyright © 2014 Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -26,6 +27,7 @@
   #:use-module (guix build-system trivial)
   #:use-module ((gnu packages base)
                 #:select (tar))
+  #:use-module (gnu packages zip)
   #:use-module (gnu packages compression)
   #:use-module (gnu packages perl)
   #:use-module (gnu packages xorg)
@@ -240,3 +242,52 @@ for long (8 and more hours per day) work with computers.")
     (license
      (license:x11-style
       "http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web"))))
+
+(define-public ttf-symbola
+  (package
+    (name "ttf-symbola")
+    (version "7.17")
+    (source (origin
+              (method url-fetch)
+              (uri "http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/Symbola.zip")
+              (sha256
+               (base32
+                "19q5wcqk1rz8ps7jvvx1rai6x8ais79z71sm8d36hvsk2vr135al"))))
+    (build-system trivial-build-system)
+    (arguments
+     `(#:modules ((guix build utils))
+       #:builder
+       (begin
+         (use-modules (guix build utils))
+
+         (let ((unzip    (string-append (assoc-ref %build-inputs "unzip")
+                                        "/bin/unzip"))
+               (font-dir (string-append %output "/share/fonts/truetype"))
+               (doc-dir  (string-append %output "/share/doc/" ,name)))
+           (system* unzip (assoc-ref %build-inputs "source"))
+           (mkdir-p font-dir)
+           (mkdir-p doc-dir)
+           (for-each (lambda (ttf)
+                       (copy-file ttf
+                                  (string-append font-dir "/"
+                                                 (basename ttf))))
+                     (find-files "." "\\.ttf$"))
+           (for-each (lambda (doc)
+                       (copy-file doc
+                                  (string-append doc-dir "/"
+                                                 (basename doc))))
+                     (find-files "." "\\.docx$|\\.htm$"))))))
+    (native-inputs
+     `(("source" ,source)
+       ("unzip" ,unzip)))
+    (home-page "http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/")
+    (synopsis "Font with many Unicode symbols")
+    (description
+     "Symbola is a TrueType font providing basic Latin, Greek, Cyrillic and many
+Symbol blocks of Unicode.")
+    (license
+     (license:fsf-free
+      "http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/"
+      "In lieu of a licence: Fonts in this site are offered free for any use;
+they may be opened, edited, modified, regenerated, posted, packaged and
+redistributed."))))
-- 
2.1.2

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola.

[Andreas Enge]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:51:04PM +0400, Alex Kost wrote:
> «In lieu of a licence: Fonts in this site are offered free for any use;
> they may be opened, edited, modified, regenerated, posted, packaged and
> redistributed.»
> Is it OK to use "fsf-free" for this package?

To me, this sounds like "public-domain".

Andreas

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola.

[Eric Bavier]

Andreas Enge writes:

> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:51:04PM +0400, Alex Kost wrote:
>> «In lieu of a licence: Fonts in this site are offered free for any use;
>> they may be opened, edited, modified, regenerated, posted, packaged and
>> redistributed.»
>> Is it OK to use "fsf-free" for this package?
>
> To me, this sounds like "public-domain".

I was thinking the same.

-- 
Eric Bavier

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola.

[Ian Denhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 551 bytes --]

Quoting Alex Kost (2014-10-24 02:11:53)
> Ian Denhardt (2014-10-23 21:36 +0400) wrote:
> > We ought to be careful about this one - maybe ask someone at the FSF
> > about whether this meets their standards, and if not maybe ask the
> > developer if they can put something less ambiguous on it.
> 
> According to <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html> such
> questions may be asked at <licensing@fsf.org>.  But I'm afraid I'm not
> able to ask about it properly.

I'll bug them about it myself, and let you know what I hear.

-Ian

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=ZcOB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ian Denhardt <ian@zenhack.net> skribis:

> Quoting Alex Kost (2014-10-24 02:11:53)
>> Ian Denhardt (2014-10-23 21:36 +0400) wrote:
>> > We ought to be careful about this one - maybe ask someone at the FSF
>> > about whether this meets their standards, and if not maybe ask the
>> > developer if they can put something less ambiguous on it.
>> 
>> According to <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html> such
>> questions may be asked at <licensing@fsf.org>.  But I'm afraid I'm not
>> able to ask about it properly.
>
> I'll bug them about it myself, and let you know what I hear.

Did you hear from them?

Alternately, people at gnu-linux-libre@nongnu.org might have already
dealt with that?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola.

[Ian Denhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3034 bytes --]

Quoting Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-13 15:15:37)
> Did you hear from them?

Finally, yes. Here's the full response:

Quoting Donald R Robertson III (2014-11-11 10:57:53)
> Thank you for contacting us about this, and I apologize we couldn't get
> back to you sooner.
> 
> > [ian@zenhack.net - Fri Oct 24 03:28:57 2014]:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > There's a patch that was recently submitted to the guix-devel[1] mailing
> > list which adds a package for the symbola[2] font, and there's some
> > question as to the licensing situation around it.
> > 
> > All we've found is the line at the bottom of that page:
> > 
> > >  In lieu of a licence
> > 
> > >     Fonts in this site are offered free for any use; they may be
> > >     installed, embedded, opened, edited, modified, regenerated,
> > >     posted, packaged and redistributed. George Douros
> > 
> > It's fairly obvious that the *intent* is for this to be free, but we're
> > concerned it may not qualify due to legal ambiguities (and the "in lieu
> > of a license" is not encouraging).
> > 
> > Is this in fact sufficient for it to be included in a free distribution?
> > If not, we'll likely try to contact the author to see if he's willing to
> > put something more suitable on it; is there a specific license
> > appropriate for fonts that would effectively formalize the statement
> > above (and fix the problem)?
> 
> It does seem clear that the author is looking to license the fonts
> freely, but the statement is a bit problematic as you saw. In the font
> world, much like in proprietary software, 'license' generally means a
> document that takes away a users rights and ensures that the copyright
> holder retains complete control over the work. It is likely that he just
> meant that the fonts were not under such restriction, but it would be
> nice to fix the issue. There's also the fact that the license is
> directed to fonts 'on this site'; so we would need to put something
> along with the fonts themselves to make sure that users understand what
> rights they are given.
> 
> The best course of action would be to contact the author to try and
> clear up these issues. As you can see from our license list
> <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts>, however, there
> isn't a font license that we could really recommend that would cover the
> same ground as what the author has outlined. But we could work with him
> to try and get a better licensing situation. If you think it is worth
> pursuing, please let us know and we will contact them
> 
> Thanks again for contacting us about this issue.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks in advance for your advice,
> > 
> > -Ian
> > 
> > [1]: guix-devel@gnu.org
> > [2]: http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
> Copyright & Licensing Associate
> Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
> Boston, MA 02110, USA
> Phone +1-617-542-5942 
> Fax +1-617-542-2652
> 
> ---

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=wegP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ian Denhardt <ian@zenhack.net> skribis:

> Quoting Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-13 15:15:37)
>> Did you hear from them?
>
> Finally, yes. Here's the full response:

Great, thanks.

> Quoting Donald R Robertson III (2014-11-11 10:57:53)

[...]

>> The best course of action would be to contact the author to try and
>> clear up these issues. As you can see from our license list
>> <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts>, however, there
>> isn't a font license that we could really recommend that would cover the
>> same ground as what the author has outlined. But we could work with him
>> to try and get a better licensing situation. If you think it is worth
>> pursuing, please let us know and we will contact them

It’s probably worth pursuing, although I can imagine they’d rather spend
a reasonable effort on it.

Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola. [gnu.org #954922]

[Ian Denhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1449 bytes --]

(sending this to both the fsf and the guix-devel mailing list)

Quoting Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-16 16:09:33)
> Ian Denhardt <ian@zenhack.net> skribis:
> 
> > Quoting Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-13 15:15:37)
> >> Did you hear from them?
> >
> > Finally, yes. Here's the full response:
> 
> Great, thanks.
> 
> > Quoting Donald R Robertson III (2014-11-11 10:57:53)
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> The best course of action would be to contact the author to try and
> >> clear up these issues. As you can see from our license list
> >> <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts>, however, there
> >> isn't a font license that we could really recommend that would cover the
> >> same ground as what the author has outlined. But we could work with him
> >> to try and get a better licensing situation. If you think it is worth
> >> pursuing, please let us know and we will contact them
> 
> It’s probably worth pursuing, although I can imagine they’d rather spend
> a reasonable effort on it.

Alright, I think we should contact him. My guess is he's not likely to
be very familiar with GNU/Linux or the Free Software community in
general (in addition to the licensing thing, the zip file contains
a .docx). I feel like if I draft a letter myself I'm likely to assume
too much knowledge.

Don, if the developers here agree, I'd appreciate it if you'd contact
the author, or perhaps draft a letter at least.

-Ian

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=/d7t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

[Donald R Robertson III via RT]

> [ian@zenhack.net - Tue Nov 18 22:29:05 2014]:
> 
> (sending this to both the fsf and the guix-devel mailing list)
> 
> Quoting Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-16 16:09:33)
> > Ian Denhardt <ian@zenhack.net> skribis:
> >
> > > Quoting Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-13 15:15:37)
> > >> Did you hear from them?
> > >
> > > Finally, yes. Here's the full response:
> >
> > Great, thanks.
> >
> > > Quoting Donald R Robertson III (2014-11-11 10:57:53)
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> The best course of action would be to contact the author to try
> and
> > >> clear up these issues. As you can see from our license list
> > >> <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts>, however,
> there
> > >> isn't a font license that we could really recommend that would
> cover the
> > >> same ground as what the author has outlined. But we could work
> with him
> > >> to try and get a better licensing situation. If you think it is
> worth
> > >> pursuing, please let us know and we will contact them
> >
> > It’s probably worth pursuing, although I can imagine they’d rather
> spend
> > a reasonable effort on it.
> 
> Alright, I think we should contact him. My guess is he's not likely to
> be very familiar with GNU/Linux or the Free Software community in
> general (in addition to the licensing thing, the zip file contains
> a .docx). I feel like if I draft a letter myself I'm likely to assume
> too much knowledge.
> 
> Don, if the developers here agree, I'd appreciate it if you'd contact
> the author, or perhaps draft a letter at least.
> 
> -Ian

Just an update that I am in contact with the author, and we are working
on the issues. Thank you for your time.

> 
> 
-- 
Sincerely,

Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Copyright & Licensing Associate
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110, USA
Phone +1-617-542-5942 
Fax +1-617-542-2652

---