Hot answers tagged

9

The LICENSE file in the repository contains the text of two licenses (the Apache 2.0 and the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0) and between those is a very important paragraph All image and audio files (including *.png, *.jpg, *.svg, *.mp3, *.wav and *.ogg) are licensed under the CC-BY-NC license. All other files are licensed under the Apache 2 license. This paragraph ...


8

One has to assume they did so on purpose. In any case, if they did so on purpose or not is not your concern: You did get the font legally under the stated license, and enjoy the benefits laid out there (and have to abide by the restrictions). They can't take it back. Sure, they might decide not to license next version under the same conditions, but this one ...


7

Typefaces are generally not eligible for copyright. They aren't in the US at all, as established in Eltra Corporation v. Barbara A. Ringer, and in many other places (UK, Ireland, Switzerland and others), the use of a font does not infringe on the copyright of a font. A font file is a file that contains points along which curves are drawn to generate a ...


6

Incorporating GNU Unifont in a software means that software has to be GPL. Unifont uses the same GPL exception GNU FreeFont uses. The GNU FreeFont website has a FAQ which explains this case: Can I incorporate GNU FreeFont into my (proprietary/non-GPL) software? Only for your own personal use, or use within your organization only. If you distribute software ...


5

This is an ambiguous case for multiple reasons: The downloaded font file contains this in its license field: https://www.google.com/fonts/license/productsans , which tells you that it is not open source. So you have two contradictory statements about the license of the font. "All images and audio files (including ...)" does not necessarily mean an inclusive ...


4

I'd add an appendix to the book with the relevant license text copied there. As far as I understand, there's no restriction on what format you redistribute the license by.


4

The new version of Unifont can be embedded freely. As of Unifont version 13.0.04, the fonts are dual-licensed under the SIL Open Font License (OFL) version 1.1 and the GNU GPL 2+ with the GNU font embedding exception. Source: http://unifoundry.com/unifont/


3

In addition to the question as-is, you added in chat I'd [...] ask for solutions to have a test suite with a) "all rights reserved" fonts, b) proprietary fonts that allow embedded and subsetted distribution (I'd link to more specific licenses) and c) fonts under SIL Open Font License. (Where solutions might be technical, like separating software ...


3

Fortunately for both of us, the Open Font Licence FAQ explicitly addresses this question: Can I make and use WOFF (Web Open Font Format) versions of OFL fonts? Yes, but you need to be careful. A change in font format normally is considered modification, and Reserved Font Names (RFNs) cannot be used. Because of the design of the WOFF format, however, ...


3

This depends purely on the licensing of the fonts. While Open Source font licenses such as the OFL won't impose restrictions, proprietary fonts might only be available under contracts that impose usage limitations. A lot of software – including Inkscape – circumvents these issues by not bundling any fonts and instead using whatever fonts are installed on a ...


3

Yes, the Ubuntu Font License seems to be an open source license and does allow use in proprietary applications. The Ubuntu Font License is based on the OSI-approved SIL Open Font License, but removes terms that create a pseudo-trademark and removes terms that gives the original authors of the font a special role. A number of conditions apply if you ...


3

I just downloaded the font file. While I didn't see a link to the clearly unambiguous license in the properties of the file (https://fonts.google.com/license/productsans), it does say under the "Legal trademarks" field that "Product Sans is a trademark of Google." The license that the GitHub repository is working under (https://github.com/google/iosched-ios/...


2

Is it OK if I retain the original name of the font? The conditions in Section 6 of the Apache 2.0 license is specifically about trademarks: Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin ...


2

First, thank to apsillers for the comment and Mureinik for the answer. They have substantially helped me to find a suitable manner to integrate the license into the .epub file. As there is no type for appendix (and no one for license too) in the OPF guide specifications, I have finally opted to use the copyright-page guide element to create the ofl.xhtml ...


2

The Apache license does not discuss fonts and typefaces explicitly, and the intellectual property situation for them is quite uneven internationally. In many jurisdictions there is a strong distinction between a typeface (the visual appearance) and a font (the computer program that renders a typeface). Whereas the font may be copyright-protected, the ...


2

On my website, I mention the license in a CSS comment above the @font-face and provide a link to the license. Depending on the exact license this may be an external link, or to a license file hosted next to the font if the font license includes extra details such as copyright notices. In the case of the OFL, you will also have to keep track of reserved font ...


2

From the OFL FAQ - Question: 3.1 Can I change the fonts? Are there any limitations to what things I can and cannot change? Answer: You are allowed to change anything, as long as such changes do not violate the terms of the license. In other words, you are not allowed to remove the copyright statement(s) from the font, but you could put additional ...


2

Conventionally, most copyright holders would consider that adequate if you include a copy of the license in the users' guide (and not just a link). The intent of that clause is to make sure that downstream users are aware of their rights to the licensed material. To fulfill the letter of the requirement, you should also bundle the license in the program ...


2

Are these 2 licenses compatible and how should I release the font? No, the IPA Font License Agreement and the SIL Open Font License are not compatible with each other. Both licenses require that once a font is released under that license, then all modifications must also be released under that license. The OFL even explicitly states that a derived work must ...


1

There is a difference between a font software and a typeface. A typeface is the design of a font, and a font software is the digital realization of that design, usually in the form of a ttf/otf file. Also note that "Font Software" is a defined term in the OFL license. As to question two, there may be a difference depending on whether you are ...


1

The meaning of "font software" should be clear from the files themselves in the package you got (they state they are clearly marked). Using the font as part of some document/background is just use of the font, as long as you don't modify it in some way.


1

Yes, you need a license to use Google NOTO fonts (unless you are the creator of those fonts), but that license is automatically given to you when you download the fonts. The Google NOTO fonts are licensed under the SIL Open Font License, which is an open-source font license that allows you to use and embed the font.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible