| 2011-11-16 00:14:45 |
Martin Jansson |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
| 2011-11-16 00:16:30 |
Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Brian Murray |
| 2011-11-16 00:16:31 |
Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot |
tags |
|
bot-comment |
|
| 2011-11-16 01:12:02 |
Brian Murray |
summary |
Ubuntu Font license 1.0: Section 3 forbids acknowlegement of contributors that isn't copyrigth holders |
Ubuntu Font license 1.0: Section 3 forbids acknowlegement of contributors that isn't copyright holders |
|
| 2011-11-16 01:16:53 |
Brian Murray |
affects |
ubuntu |
ubuntu-font-family |
|
| 2011-11-16 12:14:29 |
Paul Sladen |
affects |
ubuntu-font-family |
ubuntu-font-licence |
|
| 2011-11-16 13:10:24 |
Paul Sladen |
description |
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 Ubuntu Inc. 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 Ubuntu Inc. 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 font Norway have used as its official font for many years, I don't think the Ubuntu font reach 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). |
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). |
|
| 2011-11-18 13:04:27 |
Martin Jansson |
description |
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). |
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). |
|
