Clarify licensing?

[pluma]

(via fontello/typicons.font)

I'm a bit confused about the implications of using CC-BY-SA for a font. Do you intend the "SA" part to only apply to derivatives of the font or is it also intended to apply to works using the font (e.g. logos, printed documents, websites or applications)? The latter would be especially unfortunate for applications because CC-BY-SA is not intended to be used as a software license.

CC-BY-SA does not seem to have any explicit provisions for font use, so the definition of a derivative work seems a bit fuzzy. Would you consider switching to a more explicit (e.g. SIL) or more permissive (e.g. CC-BY or MIT) license?

EDIT: This issue probably applies to other fontello fonts released as CC-BY-SA.

[stephenhutchings]

I originally chose the CC-BY-SA licence to protect the artwork for the font, which is available in this repository. Derivative work in my mind is referring to derivations on the project's artwork, rather than the font itself. I totally expect people to freely create custom versions of the font for their own purposes, but would still expect attribution in that scenario.

[pluma]

The problem with an SA license is that it behaves by default like a viral copyleft license. That is, unless explicit exceptions are made, if interpreted conservatively, any use of an SA work should be considered a derivative work and thus should be published under the same license. For software copyleft licenses are usually less ambiguous (e.g. the GPL is pretty clear about only applying to software, so artwork is typically licensed separately), but the CC licenses are actually intended to be ambiguous in order to be more broadly applicable.

I tried to get a statement from the CC community on this and it seems the general consensus is that because the license does not make any explicit provisions, the question of what is or is not considered a derivative work of a typeface or font file should be deferred to the copyright holder or to the courts.

Of course you could argue that "derivative" in this case should "obviously" just refer to modifications of the typeface itself rather than use as a webfont or part of a composite webfont (e.g. via fontello) in an independent work, and of course I don't suspect any bad faith but it's always possible that the copyright could be transferred in the future (think Oracle) and the ambiguity in the license's language leads to someone getting sued, so it's helpful to have the author's (i.e. your) definitive interpretation of the exact terms. It may seem like nitpicking, but I'm extremely paranoid when it comes to license violations (especially because I mostly work for third parties and don't want to create potential future complications for them).

So, just for the record: do I understand you correctly that you provide an exemption to the "Share Alike" clause of the license for the purposes of simply using the typeface, be it for a logo, use as a font file for a website, web application or embedded in a document (e.g. PDF), or in printed goods, as long as the "Attribution" requirement is fulfilled?

BTW, the problem with saying the CC-BY-SA license should only apply to the artwork is that as far as I can tell the artwork in the repo is actually the SVG font itself (and in any case the font files are a derivative work of the typeface, thus inheriting the CC-BY-SA license via the SA clause).

[stephenhutchings]

I understand where you're coming from and reading the SIL documentation, that licence should alleviate your pain points and still provide reasonable "share-alike" functionality. With that in mind, I would be happy to transfer the font files only to the SIL licence, meaning that the font can be freely modified, distributed and sold in other applications (e.g. logos, printed documents, websites or applications), so long as it is not sold by itself or distributed under any other licence.

The font is, however, constructed from the SVG artwork files, not SVG font, and for this reason I think the CC-BY-SA licence is still appropriate for this content.

I will clarify this in the project when I get the chance.

[stephenhutchings]

19a8deb resolves this issue.

[pluma]

Awesome. I think that is indeed the best course of action. Thanks.

[kemie]

reviving this thread for clarification. If I understand correctly with this current dual licensing for font/artwork we ARE allowed to use and redistribute the font in commercial projects as long as it doesn't include the original vector artwork, it's not distributed by itself, and it maintains its licence. is this correct? (I don't want to do anything I'm not supposed to)

[stephenhutchings]

Yep, that's correct.

[kemie]

thanks :)