Checking fonts licensing

This page needs some love
This page should be revised or reconstructed to be more helpful. Problems may include being out of step with current team or project status or process.

This article is unfinished
It needs editorial work, and may not be accurate. Don't rely on it.

(22:34:36) mether: nim-nim: ping
(22:34:52) nim-nim: mether: pong
(22:35:15) mether: nim-nim: how do you verify a font's license?
(22:35:29) mether: nim-nim: I ran strings on it but can font forge be used?
(22:35:32) nim-nim: mether: in what sense?
(22:35:44) LyosNorezel: mether: check upstream?
(22:36:01) mether: LyosNorezel: upstream website sometimes lies about the actual license
(22:36:11) nim-nim: mether: you can access most fields in fontforge
(22:36:27) nim-nim: however many font authors don't fill them
(22:36:36) nim-nim: or copy info from some other font
(22:36:36) mether: nim-nim: ah ok
(22:36:42) LyosNorezel: now why would the author lie about what license he choses?
(22:36:55) nim-nim: or change idea on licensing and forget to update metadata
(22:36:58) ***LyosNorezel is confused
(22:37:10) nim-nim: so in-font info is unreliable at best
(22:37:38) mether: LyosNorezel: various reasons. sometimes it is deceptive. sometimes they are simply unaware of changes
(22:38:51) LyosNorezel: mether: in this case "upstream" is the actual *AUTHOR* of the font
(22:38:58) nim-nim: mether: in practical terms in-font info are hints, detached license files are stronger hints, and usually the author is the most reliable source
(22:39:15) nim-nim: with google that may tell you if the author has an history of fabrication
(22:39:16) LyosNorezel: er... *fonts
(22:39:34) mether: LyosNorezel: yes, authors lie about font licenses too. We have a long history of that
(22:39:40) LyosNorezel: o.0
(22:40:01) mether: LyosNorezel: a recent example would be https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/648
(22:40:01) nim-nim: mether: what font are you worried about?
(22:40:07) LyosNorezel: wait... author claims *IN PUBLIC* to be using one license...
(22:40:20) LyosNorezel: but deceptively uses another?
(22:40:30) mether: LyosNorezel: yep. check that ticket
(22:40:47) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: the author claims author rights on something someone else did
(22:40:48) LyosNorezel: seems to me like the author would merely be setting a trap for himself...
(22:41:30) mether: LyosNorezel: copying glyphs from other fonts with incompatible licenses is not uncommon unfortunately
(22:41:41) LyosNorezel: interesting
(22:41:53) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: this is why we are very careful about crosschecking lincensing of the fonts we get in
(22:42:08) mether: LyosNorezel: fonts are quite notorious for that in fact
(22:42:16) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: but even then, it's not always possible to be 100% sure
(22:42:33) LyosNorezel: interesting
(22:42:46) nim-nim: once a font is in major distributions you have a clear licensing trail
(22:42:54) nim-nim: but before, can be murky
(22:43:08) nim-nim: mether: what font are you worried about?
(22:44:02) mether: nim-nim: I am reviewing 454128 but I am not particularly suspicious of that. Just wondering whats the common procedure used to verify the license
(22:44:43) buggbot: Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=454128 medium, low, ---, Rahul Sundaram, ASSIGNED , Review Request: Thibault-fonts - Collection of fonts from thibault.org
(22:44:59) nim-nim: mether: the common procedure is ask
22:45
(22:45:01) nim-nim: and ask
(22:45:03) nim-nim: and ask
(22:45:11) nim-nim: as many sources you can
(22:45:23) nim-nim: till you can be reasonably sure it's ok
(22:46:08) nim-nim: and use common sense
(22:46:17) LyosNorezel: well... on all 4 of the fonts packaged in the src.rpm under 454128... COPYING.LIB is the license file(s)
(22:46:37) LyosNorezel: but other than that...
(22:46:43) nim-nim: as in "the gfs fonts have been used in Athen's games, so they've probably been cross-checked to death"
(22:47:20) nim-nim: or "SIL has been making a lot of noise about font licensing so someone would have complained if they were not clean"
(22:47:54) nim-nim: or "the home page describes how the font was created, nobody but the author could have written this"
(22:47:56) nim-nim: etc
(22:48:39) mether: right, I am doing the most common things to check
(22:48:56) nim-nim: when in doubt ask on ##fonts, there are people who know the history of most legit fonts out there
(22:49:08) nim-nim: this is how X was caught
(22:49:50) mether: nim-nim: might write up these info in the fonts legal page
22:50
(22:50:11) nim-nim: that's one reason to use a chan dedicated to floss fonts and not a distro-specific one
(22:50:17) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: mether: http://www.thibault.org/fonts <<-- author's page
(22:50:20) nim-nim: mether: it's a wiki
(22:50:27) nim-nim: mether: new articles welcome
(22:50:29) mether: LyosNorezel: yep. checked that
(22:51:12) nim-nim: mether: I've asked Docs team support a long time ago, but they don't seem very interested
(22:51:37) nim-nim: mether: there is a ton of stuff that should be written down properly
(22:51:41) LyosNorezel: mether: did you see the description on the Isabella font? he goes pretty indepth... not sure what's required for the "nobody but the author could have written this" title... but...
(22:52:28) mether: LyosNorezel: I am aware of the fonts to a good extend, like i said. I am just extra careful about fonts
(22:52:33) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: the danger of course is someone lifting the explanation with the fonts
(22:52:52) nim-nim: which is why checking in google there is not another page with the smae stuff on is good
(22:53:09) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: true... though like I said above... a simple google search usually turns up such things
(22:53:46) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: I did that long before I even started this... verifiable by searching yourself
(22:54:28) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: the fonts on the wishlist have all been pre-checked
(22:54:41) LyosNorezel: mether: I understand the caution... merely point out what's written on the authors site... and my own searches
(22:54:46) nim-nim: not that the checks are perfect but I'm reasonably sure none of them is a risk
(22:54:49) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: really?
(22:54:55) LyosNorezel: I did not know that
22:55
(22:55:53) nim-nim: there may be some fonts in there whith a licensing mess
(22:56:26) nim-nim: but none of them "stolen" that I know of. ONly licensing messes created by the original authors
(22:56:49) LyosNorezel: the only one I know may have a licensing issue... was the Engadget font... which I have removed (for now)
(22:57:01) LyosNorezel: still waiting to hear back from engadget
(22:57:25) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: when the SIG was created, and the wishlist started,
(22:57:40) nim-nim: Fedora font situation had regressed to a pityful stage
(22:58:16) nim-nim: so the people who filled the initial wishlist usually only added well-known fonts on it
(22:58:26) nim-nim: and skipped the others
(22:58:41) LyosNorezel: good to know
(22:58:47) nim-nim: since just adding fonts we were reasonably certain of
(22:59:09) nim-nim: already represented more font packages than what was in Fedora at the time
(22:59:47) nim-nim: however if we manage to package those
(22:59:58) nim-nim: the next stage is going to be more dangerous
(23:02:58) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: "more dangerous" how?
(23:03:56) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: more dangerous is that most of the fonts on the wishlist have a distro history or something like that
(23:04:22) nim-nim: when we start looking at fonts without a known history
(23:04:32) nim-nim: we'll need to be a lot more careful
(23:04:50) LyosNorezel: hmmm... makes sense

2008-07-18 IRC logs

Fonts in Fedora
The Fonts SIG takes loving care of Fedora fonts. Please join this special interest group if you are interested in creating, improving, packaging, or just suggesting a font. Any help will be appreciated.