SIL Open Font License and GPL

[tardyp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIL_Open_Font_License

wikipedia clearly states that SIL OFL is not GPL compatible, despite what is written in font-awesome's license page. Can you clarify?

[davegandy]

It is my understanding that SIL OFL 1.1 is GPL compatible:
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL-FAQ_web#b2e49b82

[davelab6]

I am not a lawyer, this is my own personal views:

That FAQ link no longer works, but I believe this is the relevant part:

Question: 1.2 Can the fonts be included with Free/Libre and Open Source Software collections such as GNU/Linux and BSD distributions and repositories?

Answer: Yes! Fonts licensed under the OFL can be freely included alongside other software under FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open Source Software) licenses. Since fonts are typically aggregated with, not merged into, existing software, there is little need to be concerned about incompatibility with existing software licenses. You may also repackage the fonts and the accompanying components in a .rpm or .deb package (or other similar packaging formats or installers) and include them in distribution CD/DVDs and online repositories. (Also see section 5.9 about rebuilding from source.)

So its not true to say, "SIL OFL 1.1 is GPL compatible" - what you mean is, "SIL OFL 1.1 fonts can be distributed alongside a GPL program, where any font can be subtituted and the program will work the same"

The OFL is not GPL compatible, you can not integrate an OFL work into a GPL work to create a combined work. But this is never done in practice. Its even hard for me to think up theoretical ways to do it.

[kreynen]

Someone just request this project be whitelisted to be included with a Drupal distribution (https://drupal.org/node/2137985)

Drupal's policies about what can be packaged on together on Drupal.org require GPLv2 compatibility. I am not a lawyer either, but when I reviewed this request to see if OFL was compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 I came to the same conclusion as @davelab6.

OFL is NOT GPL compatible at all. I can find several references saying it is not GPL compatible and nothing (other than Font Awesome project) saying that it is.

OFL is listed in the Fonts section of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts, NOT the http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIL_Open_Font_License#GPL_Compatibility (unfortunately uncited)

The Open Font License is incompatible with the GPL due to its strong copyleft.[citation needed]
Even if it did not have a strong copyleft, it would still be GPL-incompatible due to its restrictions on
the Reserved Font Names and selling the fonts, which are considered "further restrictions" within
the meaning of section 10 of the GPL.

If the font was truly GPL compatible it would have the same issue as GPL licensed fonts and may unintentionally lead to documents created using the font be required to also be GPL. This is why the GPL+FE was created...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_font_exception

GPL+FE is a strategy for sharing open source digital fonts comparable to the SIL Open Font License.

The Open Font Library does a decent job of defining the different licenses fonts can use and the licenses actually being used.

http://openfontlibrary.org/guidebook/supported_licenses
http://openfontlibrary.org/en/guidebook/existing_libre_open_fonts

For this to be packaged with a Drupal distribution using a license currently used by fonts, the font itself it would have to be licensed as MIT and (possibly?) GPLv2+FE.

[davelab6]

In not sure, because any font can be substituted, so it's aggregate
distribution, thus GPL compatibility isn't relevant?
On 18 Nov 2013 09:55, "kreynen" [email protected] wrote:

Someone just request this project be whitelisted to be included with a
Drupal distribution (https://drupal.org/node/2137985)

Drupal's policies about what can be packaged on together on Drupal.org
require GPLv2 compatibility. I am not a lawyer either, but when I reviewed
this request to see if OFL was compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 I came
to the same conclusion as @davelab6 https://github.com/davelab6.

OFL is NOT GPL compatible at all. I can find several references saying
it is not GPL compatible and nothing (other than Font Awesome project)
saying that it is.

OFL is listed in the Fonts section of
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts, NOT the
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicensessection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIL_Open_Font_License#GPL_Compatibility(unfortunately uncited)

The Open Font License is incompatible with the GPL due to its strong
copyleft.[citation needed]
Even if it did not have a strong copyleft, it would still be
GPL-incompatible due to its restrictions on
the Reserved Font Names and selling the fonts, which are considered
"further restrictions" within
the meaning of section 10 of the GPL.

If the font was truly GPL compatible it would have the same issue as GPL
licensed fonts and may unintentionally lead to documents created using the
font be required to also be GPL. This is why the GPL+FE was created...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_font_exception

GPL+FE is a strategy for sharing open source digital fonts comparable to
the SIL Open Font License.

The Open Font Library does a decent job of defining the different licenses
fonts can use and the licenses actually being used.

http://openfontlibrary.org/guidebook/supported_licenses
http://openfontlibrary.org/en/guidebook/existing_libre_open_fonts

For this to be packaged with a Drupal distribution using a license
currently used by fonts, the font itself it would have to be licensed as
MIT and (possibly?) GPLv2+FE.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/1124#issuecomment-28703032
.

[hswong3i]

After some basic study I would like to suggest dual license with OFL and GPLv2+FE for fonts file.

some example and founding:

• Case as http://www.linuxlibertine.org/index.php?id=91&L=1 (OFL + GPLv3) may not be a good idea since some project (e.g. Drupal, where I am coming from) are still GPLv2 ONLY
• http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/trunk/freefont/README?root=freefont&view=markup also in GPLv3 so again not a good idea...
• http://code.google.com/p/osifont/source/browse/trunk/COPYING also GPLv3...
• WELL!! Finally a good example for OFL + GPLv2+FE (http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~fonts/ubuntutitle/trunk/view/head:/COPYING.txt and http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~fonts/ubuntutitle/trunk/files)

As a Drupal developer personally I am very sorry about the strict GPLv2 policy that now we are enforcing which make a trouble to other else FOSS project; but this strict GPLv2 policy also encourage numbers of contributor to contribute their work to public (24,496 Modules + 1,878 Themes + 710 Distributions + 30,126 Developers).

Please kindly consider "adding" GPLv2+FE together with OFL, therefore we can safely include this awesome project into Drupal, as originally stated: http://fontawesome.io/license/

Font Awesome is fully open source and is GPL compatible. You can use it for commercial projects, open source projects, or really just about whatever you want.

[davelab6]

I think just OFL is fine; that it isn't GPL compatible isn't relevant because Drupal is doing aggregate distribution of the font. §2 of the GPLv2 says,

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

[kreynen]

@davelab6 I think we actually agree on the licensing issues. GPL compatibility is only relevant because Drupal demands everything be licensed w/ GPLv2 or a license the FSF agrees is GPLv2 compatible. Bundling OFL w/ GPLv2 isn't a GPL issue, it's a Drupal issue. The GPLv2 or later license Drupal uses allows someone to bundle Drupal with a GPLv3 license on Github and include Font-Awesome (OFL 1.1) and Bootstrap (Apache 2.0).

They just can't do it on Drupal.org.

Drupal is the reason Bootstrap is moving to an MIT license w/ the 3.1 release. twbs/bootstrap#2054

Like @hswong3i, I have to apologize for how ridiculous this must seem to other projects. We are like the angry old folks telling kids to get off our lawn with their new fangled licenses. I will make the case to allow OFL and licenses w/ the +FE exception when we make the change to GPLv3 for Drupal distributions, but right now MIT is the only license used with fonts that we would approve packaging with a distribution on Drupal.org.

My reason for posting wasn't to get Font-Awesome to change it's license, but to agree that the "GPL compatible" claim isn't accurate.

[tardyp]

Bootstrap is different because you usually are actually using bootstrap as
part of a greater CSS work. In the case of a font, it is IMHO different
because you are not linking or compiling together you really are bundling
like a distro

That said if drupal is requiring everything that is hosted on its site to
be GPL is their entire right but is a different problem

M2c, ianal
Le 19 nov. 2013 14:52, "kreynen" [email protected] a écrit :

@davelab6 https://github.com/davelab6 I think we actually agree on the
licensing issues. GPL compatibility is only relevant because Drupal demands
everything be licensed w/ GPLv2 or a license the FSF agrees is GPLv2
compatible. Bundling OFL w/ GPLv2 isn't a GPL issue, it's a Drupal issue.
The GPLv2 or later license Drupal uses allows someone to bundle Drupal with
a GPLv3 license on Github and include Font-Awesome (OFL 1.1) and Bootstrap
(Apache 2.0).

They just can't do it on Drupal.org.

Drupal is the reason Bootstrap is moving to an MIT license w/ the 3.1
release. twbs/bootstrap#2054twbs/bootstrap#2054

Like @hswong3i https://github.com/hswong3i, I have to apologize for how
ridiculous this must seem to other projects. We are like the angry old
folks telling kids to get off our lawn with their new fangled licenses. I
will make the case to allow OFL and licenses w/ the +FE exception when we
make the change to GPLv3 for Drupal distributions, but right now MIT is the
only license used with fonts that we would approve packaging with a
distribution on Drupal.org.

My reason for posting wasn't to get Font-Awesome to change it's license,
but to agree that the "GPL compatible" claim isn't accurate.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/1124#issuecomment-28790959
.

[tagliala]

@kreynen what about glyphicons bundled with bootstrap?

http://getbootstrap.com/components/#glyphicons

Includes 200 glyphs in font format from the Glyphicon Halflings set. Glyphicons Halflings are normally not available for free, but their creator has made them available for Bootstrap free of cost. As a thank you, we only ask that you to include a link back to Glyphicons whenever possible.

[kreynen]

@tagliala was really dreading asking Bootstrap for a package without glyphicons, but found...

http://glyphicons.com/license/

GLYPHICONS Halflings are also a part of Bootstrap from Twitter, and they are released under the
same license as Bootstrap.

[davelab6]

On 19 November 2013 09:13, Pierre Tardy [email protected] wrote:

Bootstrap is different because you usually are actually using bootstrap as
part of a greater CSS work.

But the GPL applies to CODE, and the CSS, Fonts and HTML templates are
SEPERATE works that are distributed in AGGREGATION, not COMBINATION.

The wordpress GPL controversy clarifies this, with lawyers from the SFLC
explaining it.

In the case of a font, it is IMHO different

because you are not linking or compiling together you really are bundling
like a distro

The same reason a font is different is the same reason the CSS and HTML is
different.

I think Bootstrap people are confused, and I am sad to see them move from
Apache to MIT because Apache offers software patent protection which is
important.

That said if drupal is requiring everything that is hosted on its site to
be GPL is their entire right but is a different problem

Right! Drupal has a silly policy.

[davelab6]

On 19 November 2013 08:52, kreynen [email protected] wrote:

right now MIT is the only license used with fonts that we would approve
packaging with a distribution on Drupal.org.

I think the best solution is for Drupal.org need to change their policy to
something that is slightly less simplistic than "everything GPLv2+."

Its a bit outrageous for the Drupal community to march round the libre
software community asking for license regression. The GPLv2 has many
problems, including very poor internationalisation, and they ought to move
to GPLv3+ which solves the mirage of HTML/CSS license incompatibilty with
Apache

My reason for posting wasn't to get Font-Awesome to change it's license,
but to agree that the "GPL compatible" claim isn't accurate.

+1

[tagliala]

so the point is that SIL OFL 1.1 is not GPL compatible and the docs are wrong?

Reopening and adding to 4.0.4 miestone,
@davegandy

[tagliala]

Question: 1.2 Can the fonts be included with Free/Libre and Open Source Software collections such as GNU/Linux and BSD distributions and repositories?

Answer: Yes! Fonts licensed under the OFL can be freely included alongside other software under FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open Source Software) licenses. Since fonts are typically aggregated with, not merged into, existing software, there is little need to be concerned about incompatibility with existing software licenses. You may also repackage the fonts and the accompanying components in a .rpm or .deb package (or other similar packaging formats or installers) and include them in distribution CD/DVDs and online repositories. (Also see section 5.9 about rebuilding from source.)

So why OFL is saying it is compatible?

[davelab6]

The confusion here is between a legal/strict meaning of the word 'compatible' and a layman/loose meaning.

The OFL doesn't say it is 'compatible' - the FAQ is explicit that it is incompatible, and that the incompatibility does not matter:

there is little need to be concerned about incompatibility with existing software licenses

[kreynen]

The OFL doesn't say it is 'compatible' - the FAQ is explicit that it is incompatible, and that the incompatibility does not matter

That is why I like "GPL friendly" over "GPL compatible".

Unfortunately Wordpress often defers to Drupal when dealing with GPL http://wordpress.org/about/license/

WordPress is making the same confusing "GPL compatible" claim about the font licenses they allow. The links to the GNU and Fedora lists are more carefully worded.

http://make.wordpress.org/themes/guidelines/guidelines-resources/

I've started https://drupal.org/node/2139273. If you'd like to provide feedback from the perspective of a font that currently can't be included because of the licensing issues, we'd welcome it. Drupal is slow to move on issues like this because most "open source" users don't understand the differences in the licenses and attempts to discuss it openly often leads to a lot of bikeshedding.

There are a growing number of people who understand these licensing issues in the Drupal community, but we're a large community so change takes time. Please work with us. I know that Drupal's views on an MIT only license vs. dual MIT/GPLv2 only changed when JQuery took the advice of the FSF and moved back to MIT only license (https://groups.drupal.org/node/245858). In full disclosure... yes, Drupal had pushed JQuery to use dual license.

All I can do is apologize for Drupal's current licensing policies and ask you to help us make the case to change them.

[tagliala]

@kreynen so the fix is:

Font Awesome is fully open source and is GPL friendly.

?

[kreynen]

@tagliala Again... I'm not a lawyer and this is getting dangerously close to legal advice. IMHO, "friendly" is a much better description of the relationship between OFL licensed resources and GPL code. It might be worth reaching out to the Free Software Foundation for true legal advice. If you ask a lawyer who isn't a FOSS advocate, they'll probably tell you to remove the compatibility claim completely. Every time I get into one of this discussions, I'm less surprised by resources licensed with the WTFPL license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL). That license is not recommended, but recognized by the FSF as GPL compatible. It's a way for people to give their work away while at the same time complain about how complicated it is to give it away.

[tagliala]

just sent an email to FSF. I will let you know :)

[tagliala]

Hi,

Hello,

Thanks for writing to the FSF. Please see response below:

My question is: Is SIL OFL 1.1 compatible with GPL?

the SIL OFL 1.1 faqs available at
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL-
FAQ_web#b2e49b82

states that:

Question: 1.2 Can the fonts be included with Free/Libre and Open
Source Software collections such as GNU/Linux and BSD distributions
and repositories?

Answer: Yes! Fonts licensed under the OFL can be freely included
alongside other software under FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open Source
Software) licenses. Since fonts are typically aggregated with, not
merged into, existing software, there is little need to be
concerned about incompatibility with existing software licenses.
You may also repackage the fonts and the accompanying components in
a .rpm or .deb package (or other similar packaging formats or
installers) and include them in distribution CD/DVDs and online
repositories. (Also see section 5.9 about rebuilding from source.)

It is OK to distribute fonts licensed under the terms of the SIL OFL 1.1

alongside a GPL licensed work. What we mean by "alongside" is that the font and
the program would be considered "separate works" under the terms of the GNU GPL,
because they aren't combined in any way, but simply aggregated. It is often the case
that a program (such as a word processor) can make use of makes use of a particular
font without the font being considered part of the Program or the font and program
being considered a single combined work.

It is of course possible that you could create a combined work depending on how
implementation is done. Such cases should be avoided with works licensed under the
GNU GPL, because the SIL OFL 1.1 is incompatible with the GNU GPL. This is because
Section 5 of SIL OFL 1.1 has the following requirement that is incompatible with the
terms of the GNU GPL: "The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in
whole, must be distributed entirely under this license, and must not be distributed
under any other license." This is incompatible with the terms of the GNU GPL,
because the GNU GPL has a similar statement that requires the entire work to be
under the terms of the GNU GPL.

And it seems compatible with “concerns about incompatibility with
existing software licenses"

But the SIL OFL page on wikipedia available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIL_Open_Font_License states that SIL
OFL is not GPL compatible, and the quote refers to:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts

Can you please clarify?

Thanks in advance

Best regards

Geremia Taglialatela

I hope that helps.

Regards,

[tagliala]

Please read my comment above, that is the answer from FSF.

Here it is my suggestion:

Font Awesome is fully open source and is GPL compatible could be distributed alongside GPL works.

What do you suggest?

[davelab6]

Here it is my suggestion:

Font Awesome is fully open source and is GPL compatible could be distributed alongside GPL works.

+1

[tagliala]

changing milestone to 4.1.0

[davegandy]

I like the phrase "GPL friendly." Here's what I've tried to do with Font Awesome:

• make the most open licensing possible, while still being actually licensed
• I want Font Awesome to be able to be used for commercial projects
• avoid viral nature of GPL

Does anyone have a different suggestion for a license for the Font Awesome font?

[tagliala]

GPL compatible -> GPL friendly is also fine for me

[davelab6]

GPL compatible -> GPL friendly is also fine for me

and me! :)

[hswong3i]

Sorry for interrupt that OFL should ALREADY GPL compatible!

Some new founding on my initial Drupal's issue:

• https://drupal.org/comment/8294709#comment-8294709
• http://make.wordpress.org/themes/guidelines/guidelines-resources/
• http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts
• http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Approved_font_licenses

The most important supporting from Fedora Project:

Nowadays, to avoid the license proliferation mess which is just as problematic in the free/libre/open ecosystem as in the software one, the Fedora project joins other free/libre/open actors, and recommends new font projects choose the OFL, and existing projects consider relicensing.

Therefore maybe Font Awesome 3.0 already coming with the latest and best choose in its licensing, any idea?

[kreynen]

We've already confirmed w/ the FSF that OFL is NOT GPL compatible in the same way a license like MIT is GPL compatible... which is using this definition of compatible http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible

OFL is specifically listed in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts, not http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

The WordPress wording is also wrong. Adding more license requests to https://drupal.org/comment/8294709#comment-8294709 based on what WordPress does will only delay getting OFL and GPL + FE approved as the Drupal Association's lawyers will want to review each one of those licenses.

| Therefore maybe Font Awesome 3.0 already coming with the latest and best choose in its licensing,

IMHO, you are correct on this point. OFL is the correct license for the Font Awesome project and Drupal.org needs to update it's approach to licensing. Posting repeatedly to these issues is not going to change the policy on Drupal.org any faster.

[davegandy]

Changed wording from "GPL Compatible" to "GPL Friendly" on the license page. For any specific concerns about adding Font Awesome to your open source project, please feel free to contact me directly.

Closing this issue.

[kreynen]

Thanks for even considering the change, but I'm still seeing "Font Awesome is fully open source and is GPL compatible" on http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/license/. I know this seems trivial, but I just found another module that committed this to Drupal's "GPLv2 or GPLv2 compatible" repo. Trying to explain why http://drupalcode.org/project/h5p.git/tree/refs/heads/7.x-1.x:/library/fonts needs to be removed is much easier when I can point to the URL of your license page.

[tagliala]

@kreynen you will see the fixed statement as soon as FA 4.1.0 will be released

[koleary]

From Drupal.org:

FontAwesome - SIL OFL is not strictly GPL compatible. It is now labelled as GPL friendly and can not be whitelisted until the revisions to the Drupal.org git and licensing policies the LWG proposed are approved. As soon as that happens, FontAwesome will be whitelisted. If you absolutely need FontAwesome to be included on install, take a look at https://www.drupal.org/node/2427075. A number of other distributions are using FontAwesome via a CDN while we've been waiting for the changes to Drupal.org.

I posted a request for an update on when the Licensing working Group will resolve this.

[koleary]

See:
https://www.drupal.org/node/2139273#comment-10871158

[jeremykohn]

The OFL isn't considered a GPL-compatible free software license because it isn't a software license at all. However, it allows bundling the fonts with software, and in fact requires doing so if the fonts are sold. Here's the FSF's take on it:

The Open Font License (including its original release, version 1.0) is a free copyleft license for fonts. Its only unusual requirement is that when selling the font, you must redistribute it bundled with some software, 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.

This is supported by the text of the license itself (SIL Open Font License version 1.1) :

1. Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components,
   in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.

2. Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled,
   redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy
   contains the above copyright notice and this license.

(Emphasis added.)

So there shouldn't be a problem using OFL-licensed fonts in software, including software that's GPL-licensed.

But even then, an OFL-licensed font does not become GPL-licensed:

5. The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole,
   must be distributed entirely under this license, and must not be
   distributed under any other license. The requirement for fonts to
   remain under this license does not apply to any document created
   using the Font Software.

(Emphasis added.)

So even in GPL software, the OFL still applies to the font itself. The GPL does not.

[davelab6]

This is true as long as the GPL software can use any font, and is just configured to use a particular (OFL) font. If there was some tight integration between the program and the font, it might switch from 'aggregate distribution' of 2 separate works, the program and the font, into a 'derivative (combined) work'

[jeremykohn]

I think all you'd have to do is specify, in the licensing/copyright notice, that the software is GPL-licensed but a separate license applies to the OFL-licensed fonts.