Ubuntu Font license 1.0: Section 3 forbids acknowlegement of contributors that isn't copyright holders

[Martin Jansson]

http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ubuntu-font-licence-1.0.txt

This must be a mistake/bug.

A contributor to a font is not necessarily a copyright holder to that font, but I think he/she still deserve to be recognised as one of the creators.

If this license is to be taken seriously, I would not be allowed to mention that the Ubuntu font I have embedded in a digital document (in a PDF and Postscript document, an otf-font is not embedded in it's original form, hence it is a "modified version" by the definition in The Ubuntu Font License) was created by Dalton Maag (but I would be able to say that Canonical Ltd is the copyright holder). Even worse, if Dalton Maag make a PDF-specimen of the Ubuntu typeface, they can't tell anyone that they created the typeface, without asking for permission from Canonical Ltd. That is just silly.

Of course, in most European countries, if a typeface reach a certain threshold of originality (or in some countries: artistic quality), I could still give recognition to the creators, and a creator can still tell everybody what he/she created, as this is protected by creators rights legislation (which can't be nullified by a license or contract). But as the the Ubuntu font is very similar to the Aeroportal font by Olav Walmann which the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has used as its official font for many years, I don't think the Ubuntu font reaches the point of originality needed to be included by the creators rights.

Other then that, it is the best font license I've seen so far. If you fix this bug, I will be using it for my own fonts (if I ever get so far as to make one of them polished enough and bug free to be released to the public).

Addendum: The Norwegian font I mentioned that share similarities with the Ubuntu font is called Aeroportal (http://www.apt.no/nyheter/?frase=aeroportal) (http://www.typografi.org/skriftkronologi/skrift_kron.html).

[Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot (crichton)]

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. It seems that your bug report is not filed about a specific source package though, rather it is just filed against Ubuntu in general. It is important that bug reports be filed about source packages so that people interested in the package can find the bugs about it. You can find some hints about determining what package your bug might be about at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/FindRightPackage. You might also ask for help in the #ubuntu-bugs irc channel on Freenode.

[This is an automated message. I apologize if it reached you inappropriately; please just reply to this message indicating so.]

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

I'm reassigning this to the ubuntu-font-family project in Launchpad.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

I agree that contributors should be recognized, and it is certainly not
the intent of the license to prevent that! Can you provide language that
would address this?

[Paul Sladen (sladen)]

Martin, thank you for the bug report, your eagle eye in looking over this is most welcome and appreciated! My understanding is that what you've spotted is in relation to Section 3(ii) of the UFL-1.0 as published:

  http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ubuntu-font-licence-1.0.txt

  3) The name(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) and any contributor
     to the Font Software shall not be used … except …
       (ii) to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) or
       (iii) with their explicit written permission.

Looking at it, two possible alternate wording would either be to repeat the "any contributor" terminology:

       (ii) to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the contributor(s) and Copyright Holder(s), or

Alternatively to remove the explicit narrowing specification of "Copyright Holder(s)", per:

       (ii) to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the contributor(s) or

Would either of these be what you had in mind; can you suggest anything better?

[Martin Jansson (martin-jansson-1970)]

As I have everybodies attention, I also think the term "document" used in section 4 lack any legal definition. At least it doesn't have any in Swedish legislation (in this context), so it likely doesn't have any on a EU level either.

Also, someone with legal expertise could perhaps come up with a GPL-like license for fonts. With an embedding exception clause, the GPL license seem to me like it work from a legal and wording standpoint, but because of its generic nature, the license is just to wordy and hard to read for users.

Paul Sladen:

I like the second suggestion. From a strictly legal standpoint, I understand why Ubuntu used the term Copyright Holder, but with the state of copyright legislation (and how it is misused) in most countries today, the expression Copyright Holder have become something of a profanity to many people.

I have seen the term Interested Parties in similar (English language) contexts. But as I'm not very good at English (and it likely mean something slightly different in other languages), someone else could perhaps tell if it would be applicable in a license like this one.

Shuttlewood: "Can you provide language that would address this?"

Was that addressed to me? That actually made me laugh. I have a broader and deeper understanding of English as a listener or reader then most native users, because I have been in closer contact to the roots of the language and met more speakers of different English dialects then most native English speakers, but because there is a lot of false friends in English to be aware of as a speaker or writer (English users seem to indulge in taking words from other languages or English dialects, but then let them take on an entirely different meaning), I'm still really bad at expressing myself in English (but then, most native English users are almost as bad, it is a difficult, clumsy and inexpressive, language, you have to be both a genius and expert to use it even to a moderate degree of expressiveness and precision). When I try to express myself in English, it always give me the same feeling I would have if I used a jackhammer to open a tin can of beans, it feels messy, clumsy and as the wrong choice of tool.

And I also have no professional legal expertise. Outside the bubble of the Nordic countries, I know practically nothing about copyright matters, or other kinds of legislation for that matter. As Sweden is part of EU, the different directives from EU always confuse me profoundly, both from a legal standpoint and a purely philosophical one (also, I don't understand why people in other countries elect such obvious political douchebags that come up with, or support, such legislation).

The reason I have read a lot of font licenses, is that I am in search for one (or two, both a SIL OFL- and a GPL-like one would be useful at different occasions, but the existing ones are all a poor choices) to use myself and as I lack the ability to write one myself (taking consideration to International legislation and agreements, and that it would have to be written in English), I try to find one to reuse, preferably one that would be in widespread use.