Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dennis.hamilton@acm.org
 designates 216.119.133.2 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To: <legal-discuss@apache.org>
References: <E5DBBCFF-1069-4EBF-9A42-242E9E26848C@gmail.com>
 <CALGG8z07U92iXwYVNsqCiq9i_JBBYCOTwyHG9yVkPxG0EJ9KjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010301ce462c$d1669770$7433c650$@acm.org>
 <CALGG8z1duS=tPbN1YxLoYYccca012jsYdOzoApqVwrekryX-Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE45F93F-5504-425A-96BB-0654C244ED3E@gbiv.com>
 <CALGG8z17+qzgC8LMq=-sPpkx-t5bkhC-s2JoyQCdwMU_2U-TpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <A564C5CB-1017-4C1D-AC4E-00CB27D8293D@comcast.net>
 <CAFG6u8FwBf_0Rm-jScrion2kHMkGNFG-=+mxFe24=h_LjHzpkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130502194901.GA3969@lp-shahaf.local>
 <CAPXTYCXHvLr2aH8EF46HdnbUrXvdN=rUCpVNZCEEeDy3h68a1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130503121234.GA3198@lp-shahaf.local>
 <00d001ce4812$5d7939c0$186bad40$@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <00d001ce4812$5d7939c0$186bad40$@acm.org>
Subject: RE: Source form Re: What constitutes a source release?
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 08:52:18 -0700
Organization: NuovoDoc
Message-ID: <00dd01ce4816$313154c0$9393fe40$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: 
 AQEHiumRCs2EYiXiKNK3DhEiljDasQIDimmxAb9o3GgBDf2cZAHMOoPIAkHtNhkBxOHIQgJVKjD8AydFCH8Bva8SEQG8aITZAmEzYmmZ0TaZIA==
Content-Language: en-us

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=3Dnrsi&id=3DUNESCO_F=
ont_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]=20
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.  =20

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). =20

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.
=20
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]=20
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:
>=20
> > 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?
> >
>=20
> 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.
>=20

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. =20

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