3 ms·

I've always wondered the legality of downloading web fonts from Google Fonts and self-hosting them. At first glance it probably doesn't sound like a problem, I

I've always wondered the legality of downloading web fonts from Google Fonts and self-hosting them. At first glance it probably doesn't sound like a problem, I get it's effectively the same as serving them from Google, but I know fonts can also sometimes have strange licensing requirements… so I always figured it was safer just to avoid it entirely.

tim-- 6y ago
I have yet to see anyone independently verify this, but to me it seems that Google fonts sends different versions of fonts, depending on the user agent. Downloading a font and using it on a different operating system from where the original download comes from seems to make the font look... unusual?
- capableweb 6y ago
  Google acknowledges this themselves, and it's mostly for compatibility reasons. Serving TTF to old browsers and WOFF for newer ones for example. Easy to verify yourself, make a request to the stylesheet from internet explorer and compare with the response you get if you make a request from a chromium-like browser, it'll serve you different contents.
nichch 6y ago
Most (all?) fonts on Google Fonts are licensed to allow free usage except selling the fonts themselves. Also, you can just download the font directly by clicking the "Download family" button on the font page.
Crosseye_Jack 6y ago
As stated in the article, Google's own devs have recommended downloading and self hosting Google Fonts in certain use cases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv-l3-tJgGk&t=24m58s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv-l3-tJgGk&t=24m58s But most of Google Fonts are either SIL Open Font or Apache Licensed
raxxorrax 6y ago
Many fonts really do look nice. I have shamelessly "stolen" .woff-files wherever I could find them and the license allowed it. I think Google fonts are all free to download, but don't quote me on that. I am usually inclined to vendor dependencies on the web. Not an ideal solution but I don't like dependencies on CDNs, even if they are indeed very reliable. But apart from making sure the set has symbols for special characters you might need, it is pretty safe to do so in case of fonts and maybe even advantageous. Also bought some fonts from other services as there are quite cheap compared to the huge amount of work going into their creation.
rendall 6y ago
Wonder no more! "The open source fonts in the Google Fonts catalog are published under licenses that allow you to use them on any website, whether it’s commercial or personal." https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq This would be the opportunity for them to tell us that applies only to fonts delivered via CDN. On the contrary, they later recommend self-hosting.
- tjpnz 6y ago
  Different product but I wouldn't trust anything Google has to say on licensing after seeing this play out: https://mobile.twitter.com/matt_lowne/status/1195373518415945728?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/matt_lowne/status/119537351841594... tl;dr - Kerbal Space Program YouTuber gets every video he ever made copyright claimed by Sony after using a track from YouTube's own audio library. To their credit YouTube did offer a "solution" to the problem but they denied all knowledge of the track being available in their library.

tim-- 6y ago

I have yet to see anyone independently verify this, but to me it seems that Google fonts sends different versions of fonts, depending on the user agent. Downloading a font and using it on a different operating system from where the original download comes from seems to make the font look... unusual?

capableweb 6y ago
Google acknowledges this themselves, and it's mostly for compatibility reasons. Serving TTF to old browsers and WOFF for newer ones for example. Easy to verify yourself, make a request to the stylesheet from internet explorer and compare with the response you get if you make a request from a chromium-like browser, it'll serve you different contents.

nichch 6y ago

Most (all?) fonts on Google Fonts are licensed to allow free usage except selling the fonts themselves. Also, you can just download the font directly by clicking the "Download family" button on the font page.

Crosseye_Jack 6y ago

As stated in the article, Google's own devs have recommended downloading and self hosting Google Fonts in certain use cases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv-l3-tJgGk&t=24m58s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv-l3-tJgGk&t=24m58s But most of Google Fonts are either SIL Open Font or Apache Licensed

raxxorrax 6y ago

Many fonts really do look nice. I have shamelessly "stolen" .woff-files wherever I could find them and the license allowed it. I think Google fonts are all free to download, but don't quote me on that. I am usually inclined to vendor dependencies on the web. Not an ideal solution but I don't like dependencies on CDNs, even if they are indeed very reliable. But apart from making sure the set has symbols for special characters you might need, it is pretty safe to do so in case of fonts and maybe even advantageous. Also bought some fonts from other services as there are quite cheap compared to the huge amount of work going into their creation.

rendall 6y ago

Wonder no more! "The open source fonts in the Google Fonts catalog are published under licenses that allow you to use them on any website, whether it’s commercial or personal." https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq This would be the opportunity for them to tell us that applies only to fonts delivered via CDN. On the contrary, they later recommend self-hosting.

tjpnz 6y ago
Different product but I wouldn't trust anything Google has to say on licensing after seeing this play out: https://mobile.twitter.com/matt_lowne/status/1195373518415945728?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/matt_lowne/status/119537351841594... tl;dr - Kerbal Space Program YouTuber gets every video he ever made copyright claimed by Sony after using a track from YouTube's own audio library. To their credit YouTube did offer a "solution" to the problem but they denied all knowledge of the track being available in their library.