Closed xnox closed 2 weeks ago
{metæffekt} Universe canonical name: Ubuntu Font License 1.0 short name: Ubuntu-Font-1.0 markers: No Warranty Marker category: Ubuntu Font License ScanCode reference id: ubuntu-font-1.0 OSI status: none Open CoDE status: approved Open CoDE approved license id: ubuntu-font-1.0 (ScanCode)
ScanCode matched id: ubuntu-font-1.0
Comment +1 to add.
@karsten-klein The example project seems to be a promotional page for the font itself. But I did find a list of usage in Wikipedia - Ubuntu typeface that looks legitimate enough for me to +1.
+1 to add, I was especially persuaded by @Pizza-Ria's evidence, as that was a concern I also had.
it is used by Canonical for the Ubuntu font, which is a popular font and has been around for some time.
+1 to add as well
This license is significantly different from the SIL OFL, IMO. Not that that makes a difference.
Fedora reviewed this license long ago and classified it as "bad" under the pre-SPDX ("Callaway") system.
I am not sure this license meets the license inclusion guidelines.
This license is significantly different from the SIL OFL, IMO. Not that that makes a difference.
Fedora reviewed this license long ago and classified it as "bad" under the pre-SPDX ("Callaway") system.
I am not sure this license meets the license inclusion guidelines.
Fonts, unlike source code, have different inclusion/embedding properties. The font license in question allows unrestricted usage as a font; with any ambiguity w.r.t. trademarks & wordmarks that are created with said font. SPDX list of licenses already has many other licenses with similar target scope - from https://spdx.org/licenses/ see many Adobe, Glyph, Font licenses which are not OSI/FSF approved and yet are useful to document with SPDX as being included along with document producing software (SASS word processing / SASS PDF software) and similar. As it is one of the very few fonts that allows it to be used in such contexts - hence google docs offers it as one of the stock fonts; as well as a few other opensource sass software.
If inclusion guidelines have changed, and existing licenses are no longer suitable to be listed - will existing Font/Glyph licenses get dropped from the SPDX license list? I do agree that none of the font/glyph licenses in the SPDX list should ever be encouraged to be used for programming language source-code.
At the moment, in Wolfi OS, we are using custom Licenseref- for this license. But given how many different distributions ship this font, there is value in having a common identifier for this license, just like all other popular font licenses are in the license list today.
One preliminary note: The bullet numbering is different for the website version vs. the plain text version. (e.g., section 2.3.1 vs. 2.c.i)
That isn't a problem for SPDX matching purposes, since we ignore bullet and outline numbers under the matching guidelines. But assuming we do add this one, I'd suggest we use the plain text version. And I'd suggest Canonical might want to fix their website version ;-)
Below is my take on applying the SPDX license inclusion principles to this one.
= = = = =
These must all be satisfied to allow inclusion in the license list
Roughly in order of descending importance
Despite my hesitancy around being able to say whether this is truly a "free" or "open" license for "Other factor" 1 above, I do think on balance the remaining factors point in favor of adding it to the list. So I'm a slightly cautious +1 to add.
For the name, I would go with "Ubuntu Font License v1.0" (same as proposed above, but not all-caps).
For the ID, I would tend to go with "Ubuntu-font-1.0" (same as proposed above, but capitalizing the first letter of "Ubuntu" since I believe that's how it's typically rendered?)
"Significantly Changed" to retain the name of the original version together with adding a "derivative X" element for the new work.
- Is this consistent with typical open source principles?
I think it is unfortunate that font names is ABI/API. These clauses together ensure that one can create additional glyphs of the same style, expand the font, do bugfixes, whilst preserving compatibility with rendering all existing documents. Unless one derives too much (new font or vandalism) to ensure a new name is picked to prevent miss-rendering documents. Whilst this make sense from typography metric compatibility and rendering point of view - it is super vague legal wise.
Ubuntu Font License v1.0
Ubuntu-font-1.0
none
none
If the license has been accepted, please follow the accepted-license process to create the PR.
This new license/exception request has been accepted and the information for the license/exception has been merged to the repository. Thank you to everyone who has participated! The license/exception will be published at https://spdx.org/licenses/ as part of the next SPDX License List release, which is expected to be in three months' time or sooner. In the interim, the new license will appear on the license list preview site at https://spdx.github.io/license-list-data/. This is an automated message.
1. License Name: UBUNTU FONT LICENCE v1.0 2. Short identifier: ubuntu-font-1.0 3. License Author or steward: Canonical 4. Comments: Ubuntu Font License is very similar to SIL Open Font Licence (OFL) version 1.1 and is used by popular ubuntu-font packaged in many distributions.
Also note the differences with SIL OFL license listed https://ubuntu.com/legal/font-licence/differences 5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/369 6. URL(s): https://ubuntu.com/legal/font-licence, https://assets.ubuntu.com/v1/81e5605d-ubuntu-font-licence-1.0.txt 7. OSI Status: Not Submitted 8. Example Projects: https://design.ubuntu.com/font