Re: Bitstream Vera Fonts license

[<Jim Gettys hp com>]

Dan,

I believe if you read the DFSG carefully, you'll find the Vera license
meets its conditions.  In particular, 1. talks about software aggregates,
and Vera can be sold as part of *any* software aggregate.

Additionally, I ran the license past the OSI folks (in particular Russ Nelson).

Thirdly, Eben Moglen (the FSF's lawyer) believes it meets the conditions
required of a free license; the FAQ was generated to clarify things at
his request.

And yes, it isn't foolproof; then again, it doesn't need to be.  It is
really intended exactly as the FAQ says: to prevent some other font vendor
to just drop the fonts into a font sale mechanism and sell them.  You can
certainly get around it by bundling a "hello world" program with it, or
any piece of software you wish to sell.
                            - Jim

--
Jim Gettys
Cambridge Research Laboratory
HP Labs, Hewlett-Packard Company
Jim Gettys hp com

> Sender: fonts-admin gnome org
> From: Daniel Quinlan <quinlan pathname com>
> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:10:11 -0700
> To: fonts gnome org
> Cc: quinlan pathname com
> Subject: Bitstream Vera Fonts license
> -----
> I'm very pleased that Bitstream has released these fonts under a
> generous license and happy that Bitsteam and Gnome are cooperating to
> make these fonts available.  However, I'm concerned about one of the
> clauses contained in the license:
>
>   The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
>   no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>   itself.
>
> I believe that renders the fonts non-compatible with the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines as well as the OSI guidelines.  It could also cause
> problems for open source projects should a font ever need to be removed
> or distributed separately.  I can think of a number of possible cases
> where a free software project would need to ship the fonts separately.
> (It doesn't matter if they're actually making money because someone
> might resell a free software CD or charge for it in some indirect way.
> That's why the DSFG and OSI policies are written the way they are -- any
> sale needs to be okay.)
>
> Another potential problem for free software projects is that a free
> software project could at some point in the future be forced to stop
> shipping a specific font due to some legal action (patent, trademark,
> copyright, look-and-feel, etc.) on the part of a third-party.  However,
> I believe they would be prevented from removing that font by the current
> license, even if they renamed all the other fonts.
>
> The solution seems straightforward, though.  For example, Bitstream
> could change the clause to read something like this:
>
>   The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
>   no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>   itself unless the fonts are renamed to names not containing either the
>   words Bitstream or the word Vera.
>
> I don't believe the current clause would actually prevent a mildly
> determined competitor from redistributing the fonts, so it only limits
> the acceptance of the fonts in the open source world.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel Quinlan                     anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, and open
> http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/   source consulting (looking for new work)
> _______________________________________________
> Fonts mailing list
> Fonts gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts