www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org>
Subject Re: Source form Re: What constitutes a source release?
Date Fri, 03 May 2013 23:33:53 GMT
It's definitely an interesting bit of info, though I think the definition
of software here isn't the same as the law courts (ie: the definition on
this thread is for the purpose of our policy rather than our license).

It feels very odd for us to consider fonts as software given our current
projects, but if we had a project that contained Apache authored fonts (of
which there are a bunch, Apache is, gut guessing, the 4th most common font
license) then it would suddenly make a lot more sense.

I don't see us ruling out Apache from having font software so fonts are out.

Hen

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org>wrote:

> The font (and the executable) case nagged at me, so I researched the topic
> a little more.
>
> There is an useful account of the situation with fonts (in the US,
> specifically):
> <
> http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=UNESCO_Font_Lic
> >.
>
> For fonts having open-source licenses, copyright applies to them as
> software.  Courts have upheld that font files are software.  (Attaching an
> open-source license to those is perhaps more in the manner of an EULA, just
> as for binary executables.)
>
> In my reading, that does not make either binary executables or font files
> into source code.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 08:25
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; 'Santiago Gala'
> Subject: RE: Source form Re: What constitutes a source release?
>
> The GPL goes on and on about this, as does discussion around the Open
> Source Definition.  Also, the license will apply to copyrightable subject
> matter, and that is a consideration too.
>
> Basically, the use of preferred form is an instruction to the contributor,
> that the source code be the form that the contributor uses as the form at
> which the contribution is *expressed* and maintained.
>
> The contributor is not supposed to add impediments (including any form of
> obfuscation or use of an intermediate form that is not what the contributor
> uses to maintain the contribution -- now what isn't the original work of
> authorship).
>
> There are cases where the form licensed is mechanically produced and
> downstream contributors of derivatives end up having to work with that form
> since an upstream contributor did not satisfy the source-contribution
> condition.  (HTML pages are an example, the text-format tables used in
> spelling checkers is another.  In the first case, an HTML page might be
> easily maintained independently, in the second case, only painfully.
>
> There is a problem with assumed tool chains, and tool-specific artifacts
> (e.g., Visual C++ project files, and make files that depend on unique
> features of a particular processor), but that seems to be an issue
> independent of this particular one.
>
> Now that there are compilers for custom languages that now emit JavaScript
> (or Java or C [think YACC/LEX output], ...) it is sometimes desirable to
> provide both forms in a contribution, simply because the contributor
> preferred form might not be usable by downstream recipients.  But what the
> preferred source of the contributor is, and what constitutes the licensable
> work under copyright, in fact, does not change.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: What I just blurted out does not seem to deal with the case of
> open-source font files very well.  Part of it has to do with exactly what
> is the copyrighted work of authorship in the case of fonts, and how does
> that extend to binary forms for digital rendition of those font shapes.
>  When is infringement, absent the license?  I imagine this has been dealt
> with somewhere, just as it has for binaries of executables (although that
> might be an exception written into the copyright law in the case of the US).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s@daniel.shahaf.name]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 05:13
> To: Santiago Gala
> Cc: legal-discuss
> Subject: Re: Source form Re: What constitutes a source release?
>
> Santiago Gala wrote on Fri, May 03, 2013 at 14:09:35 +0200:
> > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Sam Ruby wrote on Thu, May 02, 2013 at 15:24:29 -0400:
> > > > We may very well have to look at each specific font to determine what
> > > > the "preferred form for making modifications" would be.
> > >
> > > Why are you saying "the" preferred form?  Probably because ALv2 says
> so,
> > > but wouldn't it be better to s/the preferred/a preferred/ in the
> > > definition below?
> > >
> >
> > I'm not a native English speaker, but "a preferred form" does not sound
> > precise. I guess "a suitable form" (versus "the preferred form amongst
> the
> > suitable ones") would be more precise.
> >
>
> Perhaps it should say "A most-preferred form".
>
> *shrug* I guess that's not really important, given that we don't appear
> to be collecting ALv3 issues anywhere.
>
> Daniel
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message