6 ms·

What's the difference between putting webfonts on your public website vs putting them on your public github? This seems like a distinction that only lawyers wou

What's the difference between putting webfonts on your public website vs putting them on your public github? This seems like a distinction that only lawyers would care about, but I'm not a web developer (and I don't know much about webfonts) so maybe there's something I'm missing.

wnevets 7y ago
IANAL but I believe you may have a license (paid money) to use the font on your site but you may not have a licence redistribute the font. You paid for the right to air the latest UFC fight at your bar but that doesn't grant you the ability to sale DVDs of it. However a user of yours could just download the font from your web server or record the fight on their phone.
- c3534l 7y ago
  But it's not like a webpage renders an image for you and then you rend an image: you send the user a font so that they can render the page themselves with that font. It's being distributed either way.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Correct. Article OP is making the argument for a font to be treated as a secret when it is not a secret. Intent and context is important; users aren't putting them up on torrent sites in this case, but simply storing them alongside the rest of their assets in source control. EDIT: TLDR Downloading a publicly available font you don't have a license to use violates copyright.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      Accidentally exposing a folder of copyrighted font files over FTP would probably technically violate the license, even if it was by accident. You're serving the files outside of the licensed use (serving and rendering a webpage). Same as if you accidentally exposed to the internet your home server of legally-created DVD backups. You'd still be violating the license under which you bought the DVDs.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Show me an attorney willing to pursue accidental violators for damages, especially when the asset in question is intended to be publicly served in the course of its use. I would genuinely be interested in case law's stance on this. Also interested in what happens to the value of non-public domain fonts if you require the digital asset to be handled as a secret (and all of the hassle that goes along with that).
        wnevets 7y ago
        >Show me an attorney willing to pursue accidental violators for damages, especially when the asset in question is intended to be publicly served in the course of its use. There are some pretty sleazy lawyers out there. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/grandmother-sued-downloading-porn_n_900484 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/grandmother-sued-downloading-...
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Usually the sleaziest are dealt with accordingly, but it is a fair point. Anyone can be sued for anything. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/prenda-law-porn-troll-saga-ends-with-prison-for-founder/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/prenda-law-porn-...
        roywiggins 7y ago
        That's why I said "technically". Whether there are any damages or what they would be, I don't know.
        teknopaul 7y ago
        Its pretty easy to get decent fonts that are cc licenced. Toomuchtodo you are not an acidental violator after publishing this comment on hn :)
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        mbreese 7y ago
    - djsumdog 7y ago
      I guess the distinction is oh Github, a project might have an MIT License with a commercial font. Maybe the focus of this article should be, "be sure to include the license for your fonts, images and other assets in the LICENSE file" ?
      - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
        This is inadequate with a commercial font: You aren't allowed to redistribute it at all. What you are speaking of is just an issue with open source fonts: Usually open source fonts have different licenses than software, and your license info needs to detail both.
  - wnevets 7y ago
    Doesn't licensing images like stock photography have the exact issue? technically the font is just a bunch of 1s and 0s but here we are.
    - teknopaul 7y ago
      Yes. Dont upload stock images to open source code projects either. Or any other copyrighted material like your mp3 collection. I think what would be useful would be to highlight the many fonts that can be used. E.g Google's open source fonts.
  - usaphp 7y ago
    Website also sends copyrighted photos, it does not mean you can re-use them on your own site.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Licenses can totally distinguish between the two scenarios. Providing a clickable link to "Download Font Here!" is probably not allowed, but linking to the font for the purpose of displaying the actual webpage is fine. Even if they're the same url. This is just bit coloring again: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
    - Nightshaxx 7y ago
      But that's what the GitHub problem is. People are adding the font so people can use the application they made.
      - roywiggins 7y ago
        Font licenses make the difference very, very clear. > The following are allowed by this agreement; you may: > 1b. Use the WOFF, WOFF2, and EOT web font formats provided by Process to style text on your websites via the CSS @font-face rule for an unlimited number of websites whose content is controlled by you. You agree to use reasonable measures to ensure the fonts are available only for the process of styling text on websites. At a minimum, and by way of illustration not limitation, reasonable measures include i) preventing unlicensed third-party access, i.e. hotlinking and, ii) not allowing direct download of the fonts unrelated to the process of styling text for your website. and > This agreement expressly prohibits the following; you may not: > 2e. Store or use the fonts in any way that makes them accessible to the public or non-licensed third parties, except where such use is expressly allowed by this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, distribution of the fonts through file sharing services and online version control repositories accessible by the public. https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...
        Aeolun 7y ago
        They make the difference clear, but they don’t make a lot of sense.
        7y ago
  - christoph 7y ago
    For some reason, reading your comment gave me a flashback (no pun intended) to the dark days of sIFR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Inman_Flash_Replacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Inman_Flash_Replaceme...
- wodenokoto 7y ago
  The analogy you are looking for is: You can give away DVD's of the fight inside your bar, but not outside.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Well, sure. The bartender can sell alcohol inside the bar but not outside the bar. Licensing can make these distinctions.
- traderjane 7y ago
  If another company performs backup on your data, is that redistribution? A lot of people use Github as backup.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Yes, if it's public-facing. A private backup is probably fine. https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...
snek 7y ago
Even better, what if I have it on github because github pages is my site host?
- lr 7y ago
  As Steve Jobs would have said, "Boom!" Perfect example!
- roywiggins 7y ago
  People who write font license agreements are not entirely morons. It's pretty clear what is and isn't allowed! https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...
- zrobotics 7y ago
  I don't host w/ github pages, but when I was looking I don't remember there being any restriction on the repo being private. Why does the repo need to be public?
  - snek 7y ago
    it costs money to be private
hbosch 7y ago
Github is searchable and has a big green “Download” button. I know, technically, getting a font from a website is more or less just as “easy”… for people without the ability to click “Inspect Element” and follow a link in the CSS, Github is far easier.
mjbmitch 7y ago
Distribution licenses are something people other than lawyers ought to care about.
roywiggins 7y ago
The people who draft these licenses are pretty smart and explain VERY CLEARLY what is and is not allowed. For instance! > The following are allowed by this agreement; you may: > 1b. Use the WOFF, WOFF2, and EOT web font formats provided by Process to style text on your websites via the CSS @font-face rule for an unlimited number of websites whose content is controlled by you. You agree to use reasonable measures to ensure the fonts are available only for the process of styling text on websites. At a minimum, and by way of illustration not limitation, reasonable measures include i) preventing unlicensed third-party access, i.e. hotlinking and, ii) not allowing direct download of the fonts unrelated to the process of styling text for your website. and > This agreement expressly prohibits the following; you may not: > 2e. Store or use the fonts in any way that makes them accessible to the public or non-licensed third parties, except where such use is expressly allowed by this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, distribution of the fonts through file sharing services and online version control repositories accessible by the public. https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr... Seems pretty clear!
- lol768 7y ago
  >At a minimum, and by way of illustration not limitation, reasonable measures include i) preventing unlicensed third-party access, i.e. hotlinking and, ii) not allowing direct download of the fonts unrelated to the process of styling text for your website. It's not clear. How on earth are you supposed to implement ii)? I'm not interested in answers which mention the Referer header. There are a myriad of factors which can prevent it being sent with the original request required the style elements on the site.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Yes, that one's a bit tricky, isn't it? You might inspect the user-agent to at least try and only serve the font to browsers. You might also make sure that if there is a Referer, isn't not someone else's referer. I don't think it has to be foolproof to satisfy the terms of the license. It might also just be: you have to check the referer. If your website has technical issues such that sometimes the referer isn't available, you have to change it so it always is. Or host it on one of the approved third-party hosts referenced in the license.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> What's the difference between putting webfonts on your public website vs putting them on your public github? This seems like a distinction that only lawyers would care about As you suspect, there is no practical difference. The difference being perceived is that when you put them on your website, you're doing that for the purpose of displaying text using the font, whereas when you put them on github, the purpose of github is file sharing. The first purpose is good, the second purpose is bad, so the first use should be allowed and the second use shouldn't be, even though -- technically -- they are exactly the same thing. That's just a detail; they're spiritually different. Unfortunately, this point of view is very much not limited to lawyers; it is how most people think about most things.
egypturnash 7y ago
To use a font on the web, you have to munge it into a special web font format, which only a browser(1) knows how to display text with. The files this article is talking about are not in that format. They are all TTFs, which you can drop into your system’s font directory and use anywhere on your computer. Also, these TTFs are linked in a public manner rather than being a file whose link is buried deep in the page source where no human is ever intended to see it. 1: or font conversion tools

wnevets 7y ago

IANAL but I believe you may have a license (paid money) to use the font on your site but you may not have a licence redistribute the font. You paid for the right to air the latest UFC fight at your bar but that doesn't grant you the ability to sale DVDs of it. However a user of yours could just download the font from your web server or record the fight on their phone.

c3534l 7y ago
But it's not like a webpage renders an image for you and then you rend an image: you send the user a font so that they can render the page themselves with that font. It's being distributed either way.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Correct. Article OP is making the argument for a font to be treated as a secret when it is not a secret. Intent and context is important; users aren't putting them up on torrent sites in this case, but simply storing them alongside the rest of their assets in source control. EDIT: TLDR Downloading a publicly available font you don't have a license to use violates copyright.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Accidentally exposing a folder of copyrighted font files over FTP would probably technically violate the license, even if it was by accident. You're serving the files outside of the licensed use (serving and rendering a webpage). Same as if you accidentally exposed to the internet your home server of legally-created DVD backups. You'd still be violating the license under which you bought the DVDs.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Show me an attorney willing to pursue accidental violators for damages, especially when the asset in question is intended to be publicly served in the course of its use. I would genuinely be interested in case law's stance on this. Also interested in what happens to the value of non-public domain fonts if you require the digital asset to be handled as a secret (and all of the hassle that goes along with that).
      - wnevets 7y ago
        >Show me an attorney willing to pursue accidental violators for damages, especially when the asset in question is intended to be publicly served in the course of its use. There are some pretty sleazy lawyers out there. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/grandmother-sued-downloading-porn_n_900484 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/grandmother-sued-downloading-...
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Usually the sleaziest are dealt with accordingly, but it is a fair point. Anyone can be sued for anything. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/prenda-law-porn-troll-saga-ends-with-prison-for-founder/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/prenda-law-porn-...
      - roywiggins 7y ago
        That's why I said "technically". Whether there are any damages or what they would be, I don't know.
      - teknopaul 7y ago
        Its pretty easy to get decent fonts that are cc licenced. Toomuchtodo you are not an acidental violator after publishing this comment on hn :)
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - mbreese 7y ago
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    I guess the distinction is oh Github, a project might have an MIT License with a commercial font. Maybe the focus of this article should be, "be sure to include the license for your fonts, images and other assets in the LICENSE file" ?
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      This is inadequate with a commercial font: You aren't allowed to redistribute it at all. What you are speaking of is just an issue with open source fonts: Usually open source fonts have different licenses than software, and your license info needs to detail both.
- wnevets 7y ago
  Doesn't licensing images like stock photography have the exact issue? technically the font is just a bunch of 1s and 0s but here we are.
  - teknopaul 7y ago
    Yes. Dont upload stock images to open source code projects either. Or any other copyrighted material like your mp3 collection. I think what would be useful would be to highlight the many fonts that can be used. E.g Google's open source fonts.
- usaphp 7y ago
  Website also sends copyrighted photos, it does not mean you can re-use them on your own site.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Licenses can totally distinguish between the two scenarios. Providing a clickable link to "Download Font Here!" is probably not allowed, but linking to the font for the purpose of displaying the actual webpage is fine. Even if they're the same url. This is just bit coloring again: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
  - Nightshaxx 7y ago
    But that's what the GitHub problem is. People are adding the font so people can use the application they made.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      Font licenses make the difference very, very clear. > The following are allowed by this agreement; you may: > 1b. Use the WOFF, WOFF2, and EOT web font formats provided by Process to style text on your websites via the CSS @font-face rule for an unlimited number of websites whose content is controlled by you. You agree to use reasonable measures to ensure the fonts are available only for the process of styling text on websites. At a minimum, and by way of illustration not limitation, reasonable measures include i) preventing unlicensed third-party access, i.e. hotlinking and, ii) not allowing direct download of the fonts unrelated to the process of styling text for your website. and > This agreement expressly prohibits the following; you may not: > 2e. Store or use the fonts in any way that makes them accessible to the public or non-licensed third parties, except where such use is expressly allowed by this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, distribution of the fonts through file sharing services and online version control repositories accessible by the public. https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...
      - Aeolun 7y ago
        They make the difference clear, but they don’t make a lot of sense.
        7y ago
- christoph 7y ago
  For some reason, reading your comment gave me a flashback (no pun intended) to the dark days of sIFR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Inman_Flash_Replacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Inman_Flash_Replaceme...
wodenokoto 7y ago
The analogy you are looking for is: You can give away DVD's of the fight inside your bar, but not outside.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Well, sure. The bartender can sell alcohol inside the bar but not outside the bar. Licensing can make these distinctions.
traderjane 7y ago
If another company performs backup on your data, is that redistribution? A lot of people use Github as backup.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Yes, if it's public-facing. A private backup is probably fine. https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...

snek 7y ago

Even better, what if I have it on github because github pages is my site host?

lr 7y ago
As Steve Jobs would have said, "Boom!" Perfect example!
roywiggins 7y ago
People who write font license agreements are not entirely morons. It's pretty clear what is and isn't allowed! https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...
zrobotics 7y ago
I don't host w/ github pages, but when I was looking I don't remember there being any restriction on the repo being private. Why does the repo need to be public?
- snek 7y ago
  it costs money to be private

hbosch 7y ago

Github is searchable and has a big green “Download” button. I know, technically, getting a font from a website is more or less just as “easy”… for people without the ability to click “Inspect Element” and follow a link in the CSS, Github is far easier.

mjbmitch 7y ago

Distribution licenses are something people other than lawyers ought to care about.

roywiggins 7y ago

The people who draft these licenses are pretty smart and explain VERY CLEARLY what is and is not allowed. For instance! > The following are allowed by this agreement; you may: > 1b. Use the WOFF, WOFF2, and EOT web font formats provided by Process to style text on your websites via the CSS @font-face rule for an unlimited number of websites whose content is controlled by you. You agree to use reasonable measures to ensure the fonts are available only for the process of styling text on websites. At a minimum, and by way of illustration not limitation, reasonable measures include i) preventing unlicensed third-party access, i.e. hotlinking and, ii) not allowing direct download of the fonts unrelated to the process of styling text for your website. and > This agreement expressly prohibits the following; you may not: > 2e. Store or use the fonts in any way that makes them accessible to the public or non-licensed third parties, except where such use is expressly allowed by this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, distribution of the fonts through file sharing services and online version control repositories accessible by the public. https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr... Seems pretty clear!

lol768 7y ago
>At a minimum, and by way of illustration not limitation, reasonable measures include i) preventing unlicensed third-party access, i.e. hotlinking and, ii) not allowing direct download of the fonts unrelated to the process of styling text for your website. It's not clear. How on earth are you supposed to implement ii)? I'm not interested in answers which mention the Referer header. There are a myriad of factors which can prevent it being sent with the original request required the style elements on the site.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Yes, that one's a bit tricky, isn't it? You might inspect the user-agent to at least try and only serve the font to browsers. You might also make sure that if there is a Referer, isn't not someone else's referer. I don't think it has to be foolproof to satisfy the terms of the license. It might also just be: you have to check the referer. If your website has technical issues such that sometimes the referer isn't available, you have to change it so it always is. Or host it on one of the approved third-party hosts referenced in the license.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> What's the difference between putting webfonts on your public website vs putting them on your public github? This seems like a distinction that only lawyers would care about As you suspect, there is no practical difference. The difference being perceived is that when you put them on your website, you're doing that for the purpose of displaying text using the font, whereas when you put them on github, the purpose of github is file sharing. The first purpose is good, the second purpose is bad, so the first use should be allowed and the second use shouldn't be, even though -- technically -- they are exactly the same thing. That's just a detail; they're spiritually different. Unfortunately, this point of view is very much not limited to lawyers; it is how most people think about most things.

egypturnash 7y ago

To use a font on the web, you have to munge it into a special web font format, which only a browser(1) knows how to display text with. The files this article is talking about are not in that format. They are all TTFs, which you can drop into your system’s font directory and use anywhere on your computer. Also, these TTFs are linked in a public manner rather than being a file whose link is buried deep in the page source where no human is ever intended to see it. 1: or font conversion tools