5 ms·

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

by 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
      > non-public domain fonts Why would anyone use a non-public domain / CC / open source font in a publicly available project? If the project has an open source license and is in a public repository on Github, why would there even been non-public resources (fonts, icons, images, etc) in the repository at all? If you have any private resources (code or otherwise) in the repository, it shouldn't be in a public repo to begin with. Are there any examples of open source projects that are including commercially licensed fonts?
- 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...

by c3534l 7y ago

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
    > non-public domain fonts Why would anyone use a non-public domain / CC / open source font in a publicly available project? If the project has an open source license and is in a public repository on Github, why would there even been non-public resources (fonts, icons, images, etc) in the repository at all? If you have any private resources (code or otherwise) in the repository, it shouldn't be in a public repo to begin with. Are there any examples of open source projects that are including commercially licensed fonts?
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...