-----Original Message----- From: MIME :marcus@ira.uka.de > Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 10:33 AM To: squeak@cs.uiuc.edu % for distribution under the GNU License and Aladdin Free > Public License.
Red flag -- these licenses don't work well together. It is VERY difficult in reality (if a legal situation came up) to reconcile the requirements of the two.
So part 2b) of the GPL (the famous "GPL Virus") should be no problem:
Not no problem, but not necessarily unworkable. We would have to be fairly careful. It may be necessary to distribute the fonts separately, with their own license language, files and stuff, and then have each user import it to avoid the virus.
Strange. We should ask Aladdin (L. Peter Deutsch) or URW under which license the fonts really are.
Or better yet, see if we can get URW to give us a Squeak-ing license!
One of my favorite things to do as an attorney when a client comes asking about hypertechnical ways to "get around" IP, is simply to suggest, "why don't you ask them if you can have permission to do that?" This isn't always the right advice, but it often is. Consent is the only 100% absolute defense in this business -- if you prove consent, you always, always win. The owner of a copyright can do what he wants, and if he is willing to give a license under the Squeak terms, we can incorporate it without having to deal with RMS, Peter or anyone.
Note that there are presently pending cases where products are being withheld because of GNU licensing conflicts. Let's be careful. RMS designed GNU so that the world would be GNU only, and recent activity seems to suggest he meant it. I agree that GNU can be circumvented in a manner favorable to what we want to do (and the only thing we can do): distribute Squeak under the terms of the Squeak license, but someone ought to be able to say, "yes" to the straightforward question, and not an indirect basis for a legal argument, so we don't actually have to lawyer this thing to get to an answer.
Andrew,
I did some more research on the URW-Fonts:
They are GPLed. No Aladdin license. After some searching on the net I found the latest "original" Aladdin distribution of these fonts. All data-files in this distribution contain the following:
Comment Copyright URW Software, Copyright 1996 by URW Comment Creation Date: 2/16/1996 Comment See the file COPYING (GNU General Public License) for licen se conditions.
or:
Copyright 1997 URW Software. See file COPYING for license
or:
% Copyright URW Software, Copyright 1994 by URW % URW Software, Copyright 1994 by URW % See the file COPYING (GNU General Public License) for license conditions.
From the GPL:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
Is the Squeak-Image a "distribution-Medium"? We should add a method like "Utilities writeFontsToDisk" -- than the image+vm is nothing more than a "zip" or "tar" with a graphical frontend. Of course Squeak can not only write the fonts to the disk, but even use them, but the use ("running the programm") is not restricted by the GPL.
Marcus
Andrew,
I did some more research on the URW-Fonts:
They are GPLed. No Aladdin license. After some searching on the net I found the latest "original" Aladdin distribution of these fonts. All data-files in this distribution contain the following:
Comment Copyright URW Software, Copyright 1996 by URW Comment Creation Date: 2/16/1996 Comment See the file COPYING (GNU General Public License) for licen se conditions.
or:
Copyright 1997 URW Software. See file COPYING for license
or:
% Copyright URW Software, Copyright 1994 by URW % URW Software, Copyright 1994 by URW % See the file COPYING (GNU General Public License) for license conditions.
The fact that they are licensed to some for use with GPL does not mean that the fonts themselves are always subject to GPL. I believe that the set of fonts that came with my Apple are not GPL'd, but licensed to me subject to the Apple license. A copyright owner may do this -- license to person "A" under one license agreement and to person "B" under another license agreement.
Of course, once the original owner incorporates revisions that are GPL'd, the owner is no longer free to do so. This wouldn't have happened with URW, which has no source and is probably did not incorporate changes (or we wouldn't care whether we got an earlier version if it did).
Should we decide we need them, URW might be talked into simply letting us have the fonts solely for use with Squeak and Modified Works under the Squeak license, particularly if asked by one of our luminaries. This would be the clearest, best way, to use these fonts if available -- no strings for distributions of Squeak -- no strings for subsequent distributions by Squeak users.
From the GPL:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
Is the Squeak-Image a "distribution-Medium"? We should add a method like "Utilities writeFontsToDisk" -- than the image+vm is nothing more than a "zip" or "tar" with a graphical frontend. Of course Squeak can not only write the fonts to the disk, but even use them, but the use ("running the programm") is not restricted by the GPL
The problem, of course, is that you really don't know for sure until a judge or jury tells you so. Representing you, I believe I'd have a fair chance making that argument to a court, given the totality of the circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee success. Ultimately, the objects created (which are stored in the image) will be impacted by the work, and I am not sure the extent, if at all, those other objects would be themselves subject to the GPL. Even if we won, in particular, the GPL, like a virus, might be deemed to extend to other portions of the image as those other portions begin to incorporate stored derivatives of the fonts in bitmaps and otherwise.
Bad Karma. GPL and other licenses really don't mix unless the two products are truly and forever separable. (Indeed, GPL makes no sense at all for fonts). This was, in fact, the intent of the author, RMS, who wanted to arrange that everything would ultimately be GPL'd.
I believe RMS considers this language to mean separate files on a disk; and does consider two files "merged" by a linker to be a derivative work (which is why he wrote LGPL). But his view is no more or less authoritative at the end of the day as to its legal meaning than yours or mine.
I have written opinions for clients suggesting that they distribute GPL'd stuff as independent files on a disk, rather than merging via linker or other fashion -- although those clients principal concern was an obligation to disclose the separate stuff.
Indeed, if subject available to us only under GPL, the single best bet may be to distribute the fonts as a simple file or files and make loading and extracting as painless and easy as possible.
So here is my question -- and why GPL'ing a font is not something I expect URW to take as a religious point. if we take only subject to GPL, how exactly do we comply with the obligation to make available or simultaneously distribute the "source code" for the fonts?
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org