4 ms·

Wait until they find out that when people visit the finished website in their browser, it will download the font! Oh the piracy! Just like in the real world, s

Wait until they find out that when people visit the finished website in their browser, it will download the font! Oh the piracy! Just like in the real world, someone handing you the keys to their car doesn't mean you own it.

sp332 7y ago
The legal issue is with the repo owner putting it in the repo. The problem is that it's a violation of the copyright license, that's the only reason it's an issue. Downloading the font file from the website is included in the license, so it's fine.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  If the repo is the source for the website then the license is de facto forbidding people from open sourcing their websites if they pay for a font for it. However the license does not explicitly limit the tools you can use to build the website, and the website is allowed by the license to have the font. The argument could be made by licensing the font for a website they have implicitly licensed it to be on github because it is a widely used tool for managing the source code of websites and if they (the font owners) wanted to restrict its usage they should have specified.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Either: You can open source the website without the font and say you open sourced your website, or if you consider the font part of your website, it means your website isn't open source... even if you put it on GitHub. Because it's a copyright violation for someone to use that font. Your best bet is to just use open source fonts, of which there are numerous.
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      I think in the end as to whether or not you can put the font in your website and have it public on github (which is not necessarily the same as not encumbered by licensing issues) will need to be determined by the courts when and if someone wants to test the issue.
      - roywiggins 7y ago
        What if the license explicitly forbids you putting it on GitHub? https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...
        bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        if the license explicitly forbids it you better not do it as I noted above. but if the license does not explicitly forbid then I think you have an argument that putting your website code on github is pretty common practice.
        roywiggins 7y ago
        By default you don't have any distribution rights at all. None. You just have a bare font file that you can't share with anyone else. That's not very useful, so the license says "you may distribute this font file as part of a website; you must be using this font to style a webpage. Any other kind of distribution at all is still prohibited." There's no "common practice" exception- just because they open up a little window that allows you to distribute the font in a particular manner doesn't mean they've accidentally given you the right to distribute it according to "common practice." Sharing MP3s on P2P sites is also a common practice, but obviously you don't have a license to do that when you buy a CD.
        bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        well I'm not a lawyer, and my American business law classes I took are now more than 20 years ago, but as I recall there are common practice defenses if those practices are in relation to something the contract allows you to do. So the argument would go as follows: the contract says "you may distribute this font file as part of a website; you must be using this font to style a webpage. Any other kind of distribution at all is still prohibited." We have used this font to style a webpage, as is industry practice we have placed the font in our site code, which is stored on github, which is also the most widely used tool for distributing website code. The website code must be distributed in order for the purpose of the license to be fulfilled - obviously the font cannot be distributed as part of a website if the website itself is not distributed. At that point the court will have to determine what distribution of a website means, if the font to be distributed as part of the website means that the website will need to be distributed, and if github is so commonly used that the license giver neglecting to mention it have given tacit approval to its usage. Aside from all this if one wanted to contest the issue the court would have to determine if the font being in your github repository is you distributing it just because someone else can fork it. For another silly analogy, just because you put your beer on the table, walked outside, and a kid came in and drank the beer, doesn't mean you sold liquor to a minor. Perhaps I'm wrong but it doesn't seem as open and shut as everyone wants to argue, unless there is specific prohibition of github in the license in which case there is no longer a case to be made.
  - sp332 7y ago
    Realistically, I don't know if the font makers would bother suing someone for this reason. But I think it's more likely that they might ask GitHub to start removing unlicensed copies of their files.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      Seems to be exactly what the DMCA was meant for.
AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
Shh! Whisper this too loudly and people will start moving font-rendering behind DRM encryption modules.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  Too late. They've already tried to do this.
  - tatersolid 7y ago
    In like 1988 as I recall. adobe Type 1 fonts were encrypted with a static key: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript_fonts#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript_fonts#History

sp332 7y ago

The legal issue is with the repo owner putting it in the repo. The problem is that it's a violation of the copyright license, that's the only reason it's an issue. Downloading the font file from the website is included in the license, so it's fine.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
If the repo is the source for the website then the license is de facto forbidding people from open sourcing their websites if they pay for a font for it. However the license does not explicitly limit the tools you can use to build the website, and the website is allowed by the license to have the font. The argument could be made by licensing the font for a website they have implicitly licensed it to be on github because it is a widely used tool for managing the source code of websites and if they (the font owners) wanted to restrict its usage they should have specified.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Either: You can open source the website without the font and say you open sourced your website, or if you consider the font part of your website, it means your website isn't open source... even if you put it on GitHub. Because it's a copyright violation for someone to use that font. Your best bet is to just use open source fonts, of which there are numerous.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    I think in the end as to whether or not you can put the font in your website and have it public on github (which is not necessarily the same as not encumbered by licensing issues) will need to be determined by the courts when and if someone wants to test the issue.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      What if the license explicitly forbids you putting it on GitHub? https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...
      - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        if the license explicitly forbids it you better not do it as I noted above. but if the license does not explicitly forbid then I think you have an argument that putting your website code on github is pretty common practice.
        roywiggins 7y ago
        By default you don't have any distribution rights at all. None. You just have a bare font file that you can't share with anyone else. That's not very useful, so the license says "you may distribute this font file as part of a website; you must be using this font to style a webpage. Any other kind of distribution at all is still prohibited." There's no "common practice" exception- just because they open up a little window that allows you to distribute the font in a particular manner doesn't mean they've accidentally given you the right to distribute it according to "common practice." Sharing MP3s on P2P sites is also a common practice, but obviously you don't have a license to do that when you buy a CD.
        bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        well I'm not a lawyer, and my American business law classes I took are now more than 20 years ago, but as I recall there are common practice defenses if those practices are in relation to something the contract allows you to do. So the argument would go as follows: the contract says "you may distribute this font file as part of a website; you must be using this font to style a webpage. Any other kind of distribution at all is still prohibited." We have used this font to style a webpage, as is industry practice we have placed the font in our site code, which is stored on github, which is also the most widely used tool for distributing website code. The website code must be distributed in order for the purpose of the license to be fulfilled - obviously the font cannot be distributed as part of a website if the website itself is not distributed. At that point the court will have to determine what distribution of a website means, if the font to be distributed as part of the website means that the website will need to be distributed, and if github is so commonly used that the license giver neglecting to mention it have given tacit approval to its usage. Aside from all this if one wanted to contest the issue the court would have to determine if the font being in your github repository is you distributing it just because someone else can fork it. For another silly analogy, just because you put your beer on the table, walked outside, and a kid came in and drank the beer, doesn't mean you sold liquor to a minor. Perhaps I'm wrong but it doesn't seem as open and shut as everyone wants to argue, unless there is specific prohibition of github in the license in which case there is no longer a case to be made.
- sp332 7y ago
  Realistically, I don't know if the font makers would bother suing someone for this reason. But I think it's more likely that they might ask GitHub to start removing unlicensed copies of their files.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Seems to be exactly what the DMCA was meant for.

AdmiralAsshat 7y ago

Shh! Whisper this too loudly and people will start moving font-rendering behind DRM encryption modules.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
Too late. They've already tried to do this.
- tatersolid 7y ago
  In like 1988 as I recall. adobe Type 1 fonts were encrypted with a static key: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript_fonts#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript_fonts#History