4 ms·

What if the license explicitly forbids you putting it on GitHub? https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agreement/ https://processtypefoundry.

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.

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.