Thread: RE: [Plib-devel] legal matters
Brought to you by:
sjbaker
Menu
▾
▴
plib-devel
|
From: Fay J. F C. AAC/W. <joh...@eg...> - 2005-07-08 14:35:34
|
Oh, dear!
It is indeed a beautiful day today. If I may misquote a twenty-year-old
movie ("Romancing the Stone"), "What did you do, lady, wake up this morning
and decide, 'Today I'm going to ruin some guy's life'?" I just mentioned on
the "freeglut" list that there is a Category 4 hurricane headed in my
direction (should be Category 3 by the time it gets here ... knock on wood)
so if you want anything from me you'd better get to it in the next seven
hours or so.
I think I will wait for Steve's response on this one. The "freeglut" file
status is even more vague because it has had stuff added from the OpenGLUT
library. GLUT, by the way, doesn't say anything about other people's
copyrights on the bitmap fonts. It does give Sun Microsystems copyright
info for the stroke fonts.
John F. Fay
Technical Fellow, Jacobs/Sverdrup TEAS Group
joh...@eg...
850-729-6330
-----Original Message-----
From: pli...@li...
[mailto:pli...@li...] On Behalf Of Melchior FRANZ
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 4:40 AM
To: pli...@li...
Cc: Pawel W. Olszta
Subject: [Plib-devel] legal matters
It's a beautiful day today, so I thought "why not stir up a hornet's nest?".
Just for fun. :-P
The file fnt/fntBitmap.cxx contains data of seven fonts. Above that there's
a copyright message by the author of the genfonts utility, where he claims
ownership of copyright and grants permissions. Very generous and all, but:
he doesn't really own anything in this file! These are fonts that are
"Copyright by Adobe Systems Incorporated and Digital Equipment Corporation
(All Rights Reserved.)" IANAL, but this doesn't look good to me. How can
the author of a font conversion utility turn the copyright of converted
fonts into his own? He owns the rights to the converter utility. Only!
Nothing more. Nothing less. The generated fonts are derived work and still
copyright by Adobe and DEC. (Or do I miss something?)
I think it would be a good idea for plib (and freeglut!) to remove these
illegal copyright messages, and put the real ones in. That's what we did
in FlightGear, where we use a modified version of genfonts, too[1]. The
generated file fonts.cxx[2] credits Adobe/DEC and Bitstream, as I think it
should. (I assume that the use of Helvetica in this way per se is allowed.
It surely is for the Bitstream fonts.)
Note that I don't want to teach anybody anything. I don't really care much
about this issue in the plib & freeglut context (and I won't tell
Adobe/DEC).
But I *do* care about FlightGear, and thought that you might be interested
in this theory. :-)
m.
PS: In case you are interested in what we are doing to plib and with it,
here are some screenshots:
http://members.aon.at/mfranz/fgfs_gui.jpg [78 kB]
http://members.aon.at/mfranz/fgfs_gui2.jpg [215 kB]
http://members.aon.at/mfranz/fgfs_gui6.jpg [264 kB]
[1]
http://cvs.flightgear.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/viewcvs.cgi/FlightGear/utils/gui/g
enfonts.c?rev=1.1&cvsroot=FlightGear-0.9&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-marku
p
[2]
http://cvs.flightgear.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/viewcvs.cgi/FlightGear/src/GUI/fon
ts.cxx?rev=1.2&cvsroot=FlightGear-0.9&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the 'Do More With Dual!' webinar happening
July 14 at 8am PDT/11am EDT. We invite you to explore the latest in dual
core and dual graphics technology at this free one hour event hosted by HP,
AMD, and NVIDIA. To register visit http://www.hp.com/go/dualwebinar
_______________________________________________
plib-devel mailing list
pli...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plib-devel
|
|
From: Fay J. F C. AAC/W. <joh...@eg...> - 2005-07-13 13:35:46
|
Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
("Rome has spoken, the matter is finished.")
John F. Fay
Technical Fellow, Jacobs/Sverdrup TEAS Group
joh...@eg...
850-729-6330
-----Original Message-----
From: pli...@li...
[mailto:pli...@li...] On Behalf Of Steve Baker
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:52 PM
To: pli...@li...
Subject: Re: [Plib-devel] legal matters
There is no explicit protection for fonts or typeface designs in US or
European
copyright laws. Some people have patented their fonts - others have tried
to use
trademark law - but copyrights do not apply. Things may be different in
other
juristictions, but being legal everywhere on the planet is generally
impossible anyway.
They can license the actual files - and limit what the licensee does with
them,
but converting a font from vector to bitmap means we've simply rendered the
font - which is OK.
I don't think there are legal issues here.
---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
HomeEmail: <sjb...@ai...> WorkEmail: <sj...@li...>
HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org
Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ UL+++$ P--- L++++$ E--- W+++ N o+ K? w--- !O M-
V-- PS++ PE- Y-- PGP-- t+ 5 X R+++ tv b++ DI++ D G+ e++ h--(-) r+++ y++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
From: Melchior F. <mf...@us...> - 2005-07-08 14:57:15
|
* Fay John F Contr AAC/WMG -- Friday 08 July 2005 16:34: > It is indeed a beautiful day today. If I may misquote a twenty-year-old > movie [...] I was actually inspired by this quote: I think it's a beautiful day to go to the zoo and feed the ducks. To the lions. -- Brian Kantor :-) > I think I will wait for Steve's response on this one. The "freeglut" file > status is even more vague because it has had stuff added from the OpenGLUT > library. GLUT, by the way, doesn't say anything about other people's > copyrights on the bitmap fonts. Well, what GLUT does or does not do, is secondary. I don't really think that there is an immediate threat. But it's clearly a copyright violation and as such not exactly desirable. Would we complain about someone else violating plib's/freeglut's license? Certainly! And I think that *omitting* the copyright message is one thing, but replacing it by someone else's is almost criminal. Like taking an arbitrary book, removing all signs of the original author, and distributing it as if I had written it. I don't like the term "Intellectual Property", even less "IP theft". But the OSS community does all the time have to fight against these accusations. In this case there's nothing to argue, I'm afraid. m. |
|
From: Andy R. <an...@pl...> - 2005-07-08 16:56:32
|
Melchior FRANZ wrote: > Well, what GLUT does or does not do, is secondary. I don't really > think that there is an immediate threat. But it's clearly a > copyright violation and as such not exactly desirable. It's actually not wrong to claim copyright on the generated file. You generated it, not Bitstream or Adobe or whoever. The data in the file *also* represents a font that is in someone else's copyright, though, so simply adding the font owner's copyright to the top of the file is sufficient. Something like this is perfectly legal: // Copyright 1999, 2005 Steve & Melchior // Font data Copyright <whenvever> Adobe Systems Inc. // Font data Copyright <whenvever> Bitstream, Inc. // Font data Copyright <whenvever> FooFoundry.com, Inc. In practice, though, the fonts are freely redistributable in many formats (X11 bitmaps, for example) that don't even provide the ability to notate a copyright attribution. Simply including those formats isn't really a serious error, IMHO. But it's easy to correct. Andy |
|
From: Melchior F. <mf...@us...> - 2005-07-08 17:14:21
|
* Andy Ross -- Friday 08 July 2005 18:56: > It's actually not wrong to claim copyright on the generated file. You > generated it, not Bitstream or Adobe or whoever. That's AFAIK wrong. You may add your copyright (if you made substantial changes?). Hey, that's what I did to the conversion utility! But you must not replace the original by yours. And you must not change the license, distribution terms etc. The mere conversion of data does *not* change license and copyright! > In practice, though, the fonts are freely redistributable in many > formats (X11 bitmaps, for example) that don't even provide the ability > to notate a copyright attribution. That's encoded in the font file: $ gunzip -c /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/helvR14-ISO8859-1.pcf.gz|strings|grep Copyright Copyright (c) 1984, 1987 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. \ Copyright (c) 1988, 1991 Digital Equipment Corporation. All Rights Reserved. As there are no distribution terms, permissions, etc. given, we have to assume that those of the whole Xorg/XFree distribution are to be applied. See: $ find /usr/X11R6/|grep LICENSE /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/doc/LICENSE > Simply including those formats isn't really a serious error, IMHO. > But it's easy to correct. Well, now that I brought this up on a public list, nobody can say he didn't know. It's in the archives. Sorry for that. ;-) Damn, I said I wouldn't care about that at all. Now it looks as if I do. I don't! m. :-) |
|
From: Andy R. <an...@pl...> - 2005-07-08 17:25:32
|
Melchior FRANZ wrote: > The mere conversion of data does *not* change license and copyright! Sure it does. The converted file format is a new work, and has its own copyright. You seem to be under the impression that a single "file" (or whatever) can carry only one copyright. That is incorrect. The original work is the property of the font author, the changes involved generated file is the property of whoever ran the conversion tool. The combined work must be distributed within the licence granted by both parties. This kind of thing happens all the time. It is *very* common for files in the commercial world to carry multiple copyrights at the top. Remember also that the copyright notice is only a formality, under the Berne conventions. The existence of copyright is automatic, and not dependent on registration or claim. Putting the notice at the top is just evidence for future litigation; it shows that the original author believed that the work was his/her/its property. Just put a multi-copyright note at the top and all will be well. There is nothing illegal going on here, so long as Plib's and the fonts license requiresments are compatible. Andy |
|
From: Melchior F. <mf...@us...> - 2005-07-08 17:33:37
|
* Andy Ross -- Friday 08 July 2005 19:25: > Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > The mere conversion of data does *not* change license and copyright! > > Sure it does. The converted file format is a new work, and has its > own copyright. So running hexdump over a binary makes the output my work? Oh sure. See you in court. Again: if the original distribution terms allow modification and redistribution (which is certainly the case here), then I may *add* my copyright. But never may I remove/replace or change copyright or terms. Only add. And this does AFAIK not apply to automatically converted stuff. Running gzip over the file makes it mine? Dream on ... m. --EOT-- |
|
From: Andy R. <an...@pl...> - 2005-07-08 17:49:50
|
Melchior FRANZ wrote: > So running hexdump over a binary makes the output my work? Oh sure. > See you in court. OK, Stop this now. You're just flaming to hear yourself yell. I never said that. What I did say was: placing that hexdump inside a file containing other, meaningful content creates a combined work covered by the copyrights of both authors. If the license terms of the original font are LGPL compatible, then just put a dual copyright notice at the top of the file and stop this meaningless argument. If they are not LGPL compatible, then yank them as plib can't redistribute them anyway. Andy |
|
From: Steve B. <sjb...@ai...> - 2005-07-09 01:03:13
|
> The file fnt/fntBitmap.cxx contains data of seven fonts. Above that there's > a copyright message by the author of the genfonts utility, where he claims > ownership of copyright and grants permissions. Very generous and all, but: > he doesn't really own anything in this file! These are fonts that are > "Copyright by Adobe Systems Incorporated and Digital Equipment Corporation > (All Rights Reserved.)" There is no explicit protection for fonts or typeface designs in US or European copyright laws. Some people have patented their fonts - others have tried to use trademark law - but copyrights do not apply. Things may be different in other juristictions, but being legal everywhere on the planet is generally impossible anyway. They can license the actual files - and limit what the licensee does with them, but converting a font from vector to bitmap means we've simply rendered the font - which is OK. I don't think there are legal issues here. ---------------------------- Steve Baker ------------------------- HomeEmail: <sjb...@ai...> WorkEmail: <sj...@li...> HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ UL+++$ P--- L++++$ E--- W+++ N o+ K? w--- !O M- V-- PS++ PE- Y-- PGP-- t+ 5 X R+++ tv b++ DI++ D G+ e++ h--(-) r+++ y++++ -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- |
|
From: Melchior F. <mf...@us...> - 2005-07-09 12:04:11
|
* Steve Baker -- Saturday 09 July 2005 04:52:
> There is no explicit protection for fonts or typeface designs in US or European
> copyright laws. Some people have patented their fonts - others have tried to use
> trademark law - but copyrights do not apply.
Right. There's no copyright for font/glyph *design*. I think I could take a
font that I like and make a similar/equal one. Emphasize on *make*. For taking
a font (which, as file, *is* AFAIK copyright protected, just not as design),
and converting it (into a form that is still a font), I need the permission of
the owner. Which we certainly have, given that these fonts are free (part of
XFree :-).
But the situation really is:
Helvetica . . . . . . . . . . . > fntBitmapFont.cxx/plib
(c) Adobe Helvetica parts: (c) PWO? really?
| ^
|________________genfonts_______________|
(c) PWO
And here I just don't see how the original Helvetica font can suddenly be
(c) PWO. Imagine the same process with an "electronic book", and running
pdftotext on it. It lost formatting (and write protection ;-), and all
link/hyperref capabilities, but in essence it's still the original work.
Now, would the book suddenly become copyright of "Glyph & Cog" (the
copyright holder of pdftotext)? Probably not. Even if pdftotext would
write a message into the output file claiming so. But who cares ...
m.
PS: I apologize to all for my impolite replies, especially to Andy. I took
the first sign of a counter argument and only replied to that, while
ignoring the rest. Bad style! And I just wanted to annoy Hornets, not
getting stung. :-)
|
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X