diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'src/jogl/classes/jogamp/graph/font/fonts/ubuntu/LICENCE-FAQ.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/jogl/classes/jogamp/graph/font/fonts/ubuntu/LICENCE-FAQ.txt | 177 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 177 deletions
diff --git a/src/jogl/classes/jogamp/graph/font/fonts/ubuntu/LICENCE-FAQ.txt b/src/jogl/classes/jogamp/graph/font/fonts/ubuntu/LICENCE-FAQ.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 776a25edf..000000000 --- a/src/jogl/classes/jogamp/graph/font/fonts/ubuntu/LICENCE-FAQ.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,177 +0,0 @@ - Ubuntu Font Family Licensing FAQ - - Stylistic Foundations - - The Ubuntu Font Family is the first time that a libre typeface has been - designed professionally and explicitly with the intent of developing a - public and long-term community-based development process. - - When developing an open project, it is generally necessary to have firm - foundations: a font needs to maintain harmony within itself even across - many type designers and writing systems. For the [1]Ubuntu Font Family, - the process has been guided with the type foundry Dalton Maag setting - the project up with firm stylistic foundation covering several - left-to-right scripts: Latin, Greek and Cyrillic; and right-to-left - scripts: Arabic and Hebrew (due in 2011). - - With this starting point the community will, under the supervision of - [2]Canonical and [3]Dalton Maag, be able to build on the existing font - sources to expand their character coverage. Ultimately everybody will - be able to use the Ubuntu Font Family in their own written languages - across the whole of Unicode (and this will take some time!). - - Licensing - - The licence chosen by any free software project is one of the - foundational decisions that sets out how derivatives and contributions - can occur, and in turn what kind of community will form around the - project. - - Using a licence that is compatible with other popular licences is a - powerful constraint because of the [4]network effects: the freedom to - share improvements between projects allows free software to reach - high-quality over time. Licence-proliferation leads to many - incompatible licences, undermining the network effect, the freedom to - share and ultimately making the libre movement that Ubuntu is a part of - less effective. For all kinds of software, writing a new licence is not - to be taken lightly and is a choice that needs to be thoroughly - justified if this path is taken. - - Today it is not clear to Canonical what the best licence for a font - project like the Ubuntu Font Family is: one that starts life designed - by professionals and continues with the full range of community - development, from highly commercial work in new directions to curious - beginners' experimental contributions. The fast and steady pace of the - Ubuntu release cycle means that an interim libre licence has been - necessary to enable the consideration of the font family as part of - Ubuntu 10.10 operating system release. - - Before taking any decision on licensing, Canonical as sponsor and - backer of the project has reviewed the many existing licenses used for - libre/open fonts and engaged the stewards of the most popular licenses - in detailed discussions. The current interim licence is the first step - in progressing the state-of-the-art in licensing for libre/open font - development. - - The public discussion must now involve everyone in the (comparatively - new) area of the libre/open font community; including font users, - software freedom advocates, open source supporters and existing libre - font developers. Most importantly, the minds and wishes of professional - type designers considering entering the free software business - community must be taken on board. - - Conversations and discussion has taken place, privately, with - individuals from the following groups (generally speaking personally on - behalf of themselves, rather than their affiliations): - * [5]SIL International - * [6]Open Font Library - * [7]Software Freedom Law Center - * [8]Google Font API - - Document embedding - - One issue highlighted early on in the survey of existing font licences - is that of document embedding. Almost all font licences, both free and - unfree, permit embedding a font into a document to a certain degree. - Embedding a font with other works that make up a document creates a - "combined work" and copyleft would normally require the whole document - to be distributed under the terms of the font licence. As beautiful as - the font might be, such a licence makes a font too restrictive for - useful general purpose digital publishing. - - The situation is not entirely unique to fonts and is encountered also - with tools such as GNU Bison: a vanilla GNU GPL licence would require - anything generated with Bison to be made available under the terms of - the GPL as well. To avoid this, Bison is [9]published with an - additional permission to the GPL which allows the output of Bison to be - made available under any licence. - - The conflict between licensing of fonts and licensing of documents, is - addressed in two popular libre font licences, the SIL OFL and GNU GPL: - * [10]SIL Open Font Licence: When OFL fonts are embedded in a - document, the OFL's terms do not apply to that document. (See - [11]OFL-FAQ for details. - * [12]GPL Font Exception: The situation is resolved by granting an - additional permission to allow documents to not be covered by the - GPL. (The exception is being reviewed). - - The Ubuntu Font Family must also resolve this conflict, ensuring that - if the font is embedded and then extracted it is once again clearly - under the terms of its libre licence. - - Long-term licensing - - Those individuals involved, especially from Ubuntu and Canonical, are - interested in finding a long-term libre licence that finds broad favour - across the whole libre/open font community. The deliberation during the - past months has been on how to licence the Ubuntu Font Family in the - short-term, while knowingly encouraging everyone to pursue a long-term - goal. - * [13]Copyright assignment will be required so that the Ubuntu Font - Family's licensing can be progressively expanded to one (or more) - licences, as best practice continues to evolve within the - libre/open font community. - * Canonical will support and fund legal work on libre font licensing. - It is recognised that the cost and time commitments required are - likely to be significant. We invite other capable parties to join - in supporting this activity. - - The GPL version 3 (GPLv3) will be used for Ubuntu Font Family build - scripts and the CC-BY-SA for associated documentation and non-font - content: all items which do not end up embedded in general works and - documents. - -Ubuntu Font Licence - - For the short-term only, the initial licence is the [14]Ubuntu Font - License (UFL). This is loosely inspired from the work on the SIL - OFL 1.1, and seeks to clarify the issues that arose during discussions - and legal review, from the perspective of the backers, Canonical Ltd. - Those already using established licensing models such as the GPL, OFL - or Creative Commons licensing should have no worries about continuing - to use them. The Ubuntu Font Licence (UFL) and the SIL Open Font - Licence (SIL OFL) are not identical and should not be confused with - each other. Please read the terms precisely. The UFL is only intended - as an interim license, and the overriding aim is to support the - creation of a more suitable and generic libre font licence. As soon as - such a licence is developed, the Ubuntu Font Family will migrate to - it—made possible by copyright assignment in the interium. Between the - OFL 1.1, and the UFL 1.0, the following changes are made to produce the - Ubuntu Font Licence: - * Clarification: - - 1. Document embedding (see [15]embedding section above). - 2. Apply at point of distribution, instead of receipt - 3. Author vs. copyright holder disambiguation (type designers are - authors, with the copyright holder normally being the funder) - 4. Define "Propagate" (for internationalisation, similar to the GPLv3) - 5. Define "Substantially Changed" - 6. Trademarks are explicitly not transferred - 7. Refine renaming requirement - - Streamlining: - 8. Remove "not to be sold separately" clause - 9. Remove "Reserved Font Name(s)" declaration - - A visual demonstration of how these points were implemented can be - found in the accompanying coloured diff between SIL OFL 1.1 and the - Ubuntu Font Licence 1.0: [16]ofl-1.1-ufl-1.0.diff.html - -References - - 1. http://font.ubuntu.com/ - 2. http://www.canonical.com/ - 3. http://www.daltonmaag.com/ - 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect - 5. http://scripts.sil.org/ - 6. http://openfontlibrary.org/ - 7. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ - 8. http://code.google.com/webfonts - 9. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF - 10. http://scripts.sil.org/OFL_web - 11. http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web - 12. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException - 13. https://launchpad.net/~uff-contributors - 14. http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ubuntu-font-licence-1.0.txt - 15. http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/FAQ.html#embedding - 16. http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ofl-1.1-ufl-1.0.diff.html |