[Openfontlibrary] Public Domain?

[Dave Crossland]

Hi,

More license obsessing from me I'm afraid.

If I'm going to sink time into scouring the web for Free Font
developers and Freeware Font Developers and trying to persuade them to
contribute to the OFLB, I need to be sure what I'm doing.

I am very happy to spend time persuading people to try out the OFL and
contribute OFL versions to the OFLB.

I am not sure about Public Domain 'licensing'.

1. It appears to be badly flawed conceptually
2. I think promoting copyleft fonts is important

What are your thoughts on the benefits of Public Domain for Free Fonts?

I'll now explain my reasons for this, at length, and start by pulling
together the fragmented comments on the topic:

On 27/10/06, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
> On 26/10/06, Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, Debian (at least) is trying to avoid literal "public domain",
> > because the concept does not exist in some countries (I don't
> > know which ones)
>
> USA is one I think.

>From a quick search, I see
http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20060809.210451.5d4595b8.en.html
and the thread of
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg35348.html
where Debian Developers recommend avoiding "public domain"
dedications, because the concept of dedicating something to the public
domain may not exist within the Berne Convention - which is basically
everywhere, including the USA.

On 27/10/06, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
> There's a top post on the linux elitists mailing list about what is
> wrong with 'public domain' from someone, I think it *might* be Rick
> Moen but I can't be sure off the top of my head. But thats the beef of
> the problem, yes.

Rick Moen recently flamed someone about it in a thread I started on
linuxelitists about Free Software Mobile Phones. His flame is at
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.elitists/11607

Notably, later in the thread, CC-PD was mentioned, to which Rick said:

"Prof. Lessig has acknowledged to me in e-mail that the CC public
domain declaration (which is not a licence) is problematic, and said
he'll try to get this addressed in a future Web site revision."
- http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.elitists/11633

I also found up
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html and
though it is a little old, it has a lot. At the end it links to
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 which is a nice read and has
this nice summary:

"Just as there is nothing in the law that permits a person to dump
personal property on a public highway, there is nothing that permits
the dumping of copyrighted works into the public domain, except as
happens in due course when any applicable copyrights expire. Until
those copyrights expire, no mechanism is in the law by which an owner
of software can simply elect to place it in the public domain."
 - http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225

On 29/10/06, Raph Levien <raph.levien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As far as I know, public domain _does_ exist in the US, but a public
> domain font can also be considered an invitation to relicense under,
> say, the OFL. &smiley;

On 29/10/06, Jon Phillips <jon at rejon.org> wrote:
>
> I don't want to use any CC licenses at all. I just want us to support
> the Open Font License and public domain (so we could relicense ad
> infinatum).

A work whose copyright term has expired can be used in the creation of
a new work, which has a new copyright term.

It offends reason to take a work from the public domain and slap a new
copyright license on it without changing it at all. This is why DRM
eBooks of Project Gutenburg texts are so ridiculous. It is lawyer fun
to say at what exact point a new work, with a new copyright term, is
created, but I'm not sure a public domain font *can* be considered an
invitation to relicense under the OFL.

But given the above quotes, and that no digital font has had its
copyright terms expire, this is theoretical anyway.

On 30/10/06, Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org> wrote:
>
>     USA is one I think.
>
> I am quite sure that public domain exists in the US.  In fact, US
> copyright law is more or less based on the concept (copyright expires
> and then the work "goes into the public domain"), until Congress started
> being unconstitutional about it.  But never mind :).

US copyright law is based on the concept of the public domain, in that
copyright has a limited term and then the work returns to "the public
domain". But this expiration cannot be sped up, as above.

Now, about copyleft.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html is a nice
introduction for the unfamiliar reader.

One of the beautiful paradoxes of copyleft licenses is that their
restrictions create more freedom.

Personally I use a GNU+Linux operating system and not a BSD one. Why
is this? GNU+Linux is a more powerful and reliable and flexible OS
than BSD UNIX. This is because it is mostly under a copyleft license
whereas BSD is not. Copyleft creates freedom, and freedom makes more
powerful and reliable and flexible software. The GPL does a lot to
ensure freedom, and GNU+Linux is proportionally better to the extent
it does this as a result.

However, there are some circumstances where copyleft does not help
create more Free Software. This is explained at
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html and I do not feel fonts
is such a circumstance. I've taken the liberty of parodying that essay
around fonts to make my point:

-- 8< --

"When a font provides a significant unique features, like symbol
characters or wide coverage of Unicode or interesting OpenType
features, those are facilities not generally available in most other
fonts.

"Releasing the font under a copyleft license like the OFL and limiting
its use to Free fonts gives our community a real boost, because a new
font as a Free fonts is necessary if it uses those facilities.

"If we amass a collection of lovely and powerful OFL-covered fonts
that have no parallel available to proprietary fonts, they will
provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new
fonts. This will be a significant advantage for further Free font
development, and some designers will decide to make Free fonts in
order to use the free font library. University student projects might
easily be influenced; perhaps even proprietary font foundries may
consider making Free fonts in this way."

-- 8< --

-- 
Regards,
Dave