GNU bug report logs - #32916
font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 32916 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 32916 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:13:30 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

We have a package of font-awesome, currently at version 4.7.0.

It's a very simple package, installing the files generated by upstream
rather than trying to rebuild them.

As of version 5, the tools used to build the generated files are not
free:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=902981
https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/13467

Is this a problem for us under the FSDG? Quoting the FSDG [0]:

------
“Information for practical use” includes software, documentation, fonts,
and other data that has direct functional applications. It does not
include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional)
purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.

All information for practical use in a free distribution must be
available in source form. (“Source” means the form of the information
that is preferred for making changes to it.)
------

Since we don't have the form of the fonts that is preferred for making
changes to them, my interpretation is that we can't include font-awesome
version 5.

What do you think?

[0]
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #8 received at 32916 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gábor Boskovits <boskovits <at> gmail.com>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 32916 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:27:34 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 2., K,
21:14):

> We have a package of font-awesome, currently at version 4.7.0.
>
> It's a very simple package, installing the files generated by upstream
> rather than trying to rebuild them.
>
> As of version 5, the tools used to build the generated files are not
> free:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=902981
> https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/13467
>
> Is this a problem for us under the FSDG? Quoting the FSDG [0]:
>
> ------
> “Information for practical use” includes software, documentation, fonts,
> and other data that has direct functional applications. It does not
> include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional)
> purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.
>
> All information for practical use in a free distribution must be
> available in source form. (“Source” means the form of the information
> that is preferred for making changes to it.)
> ------
>
> Since we don't have the form of the fonts that is preferred for making
> changes to them, my interpretation is that we can't include font-awesome
> version 5.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
As far as I can see this is really a problem. It seems to me that Debian
also came to that conclusion.


> [0]
> https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #11 received at 32916 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 32916 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:33:12 -0400

Hi Leo,

Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:

> We have a package of font-awesome, currently at version 4.7.0.
>
> It's a very simple package, installing the files generated by upstream
> rather than trying to rebuild them.
>
> As of version 5, the tools used to build the generated files are not
> free:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=902981
> https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/13467
>
> Is this a problem for us under the FSDG? Quoting the FSDG [0]:
>
> ------
> “Information for practical use” includes software, documentation, fonts,
> and other data that has direct functional applications. It does not
> include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional)
> purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.
>
> All information for practical use in a free distribution must be
> available in source form. (“Source” means the form of the information
> that is preferred for making changes to it.)
> ------
>
> Since we don't have the form of the fonts that is preferred for making
> changes to them, my interpretation is that we can't include font-awesome
> version 5.
>
> What do you think?
>
> [0]
> https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html

I agree that version 5 of font-awesome does not meet the requirements of
the FSDG, which states:

  A free system distribution should be self-hosting.  This means that
  you must be able to develop and build the system with tools that the
  system provides you.  As a result, a free system distribution cannot
  include free software that can only be built by using nonfree
  software.

Moreover, it is doubtful that it could even be considered free software,
since it is not clear how users can effectively modify the font without
access to its build system, which is both proprietary and secret.

FWIW, the GNU GPL v3 definition of "corresponding source" includes the
build system:

  The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all
  the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
  work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
  control those activities.

Therefore, I think we should keep 'font-awesome' frozen at version 4.7,
with a comment explaining the situation, to prevent others from
accidentally upgrading it.

What do you think?

      Mark

Message #14 received at 32916 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
Cc: 32916 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 23:26:19 +0200

Hello,

Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org> skribis:

> I agree that version 5 of font-awesome does not meet the requirements of
> the FSDG, which states:
>
>   A free system distribution should be self-hosting.  This means that
>   you must be able to develop and build the system with tools that the
>   system provides you.  As a result, a free system distribution cannot
>   include free software that can only be built by using nonfree
>   software.
>
> Moreover, it is doubtful that it could even be considered free software,
> since it is not clear how users can effectively modify the font without
> access to its build system, which is both proprietary and secret.
>
> FWIW, the GNU GPL v3 definition of "corresponding source" includes the
> build system:
>
>   The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all
>   the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
>   work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
>   control those activities.

I don’t have a clear opinion on ‘font-awesome’ yet, but I have some
comments: (1) only some of our font packages are built from source
(though I think we should do more of that), (2) the font might be
considered “non-functional data” rather than software under the FSDG,
and (3) the font is a “free font” under a license (SIL OFL) that doesn’t
have a clear notion of corresponding source like GPLv3 has.

Ludo’.

Message #17 received at 32916 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
To: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
Cc: 32916 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:28:21 -0400

Hi Ludovic,

ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org> skribis:
>
>> I agree that version 5 of font-awesome does not meet the requirements of
>> the FSDG, which states:
>>
>>   A free system distribution should be self-hosting.  This means that
>>   you must be able to develop and build the system with tools that the
>>   system provides you.  As a result, a free system distribution cannot
>>   include free software that can only be built by using nonfree
>>   software.
>>
>> Moreover, it is doubtful that it could even be considered free software,
>> since it is not clear how users can effectively modify the font without
>> access to its build system, which is both proprietary and secret.
>>
>> FWIW, the GNU GPL v3 definition of "corresponding source" includes the
>> build system:
>>
>>   The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all
>>   the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
>>   work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
>>   control those activities.
>
> I don’t have a clear opinion on ‘font-awesome’ yet, but I have some
> comments: (1) only some of our font packages are built from source
> (though I think we should do more of that), (2) the font might be
> considered “non-functional data” rather than software under the FSDG,

The GNU FSDG states:

   License Rules

   “Information for practical use” includes software, documentation,
   fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications.  It
   does not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than
   functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.

   All information for practical use in a free distribution must be
   available in source form.  (“Source” means the form of the
   information that is preferred for making changes to it.)

I think it's reasonably clear that the first paragraph above refers to
the distinction between functional and non-functional data, and it
specifically lists "fonts" as an example of the first category.  It also
associates the terms "functional" and "for practical use" with "fonts".

The section on "Non-functional Data" begins with:

  Data that isn't functional, that doesn't do a practical job, is more
  of an adornment to the system's software than a part of it.  [...]

Note the two terms "functional", and "does a practical job" which
essentially means the same thing as "for practical use".  These two
terms are specifically associated with "fonts" above, and are
contraindicators for "Non-functional Data".

This seems reasonably clear to me.  What do you think?

      Mark

Message #20 received at 32916 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
Cc: 32916 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:19:00 +0200

Hello Mark,

Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org> skribis:

> ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

>> I don’t have a clear opinion on ‘font-awesome’ yet, but I have some
>> comments: (1) only some of our font packages are built from source
>> (though I think we should do more of that), (2) the font might be
>> considered “non-functional data” rather than software under the FSDG,
>
> The GNU FSDG states:
>
>    License Rules
>
>    “Information for practical use” includes software, documentation,
>    fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications.  It
>    does not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than
>    functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.
>
>    All information for practical use in a free distribution must be
>    available in source form.  (“Source” means the form of the
>    information that is preferred for making changes to it.)
>
> I think it's reasonably clear that the first paragraph above refers to
> the distinction between functional and non-functional data, and it
> specifically lists "fonts" as an example of the first category.  It also
> associates the terms "functional" and "for practical use" with "fonts".

Indeed, I had overlooked this paragraph.  I agree with your
interpretation.

> The section on "Non-functional Data" begins with:
>
>   Data that isn't functional, that doesn't do a practical job, is more
>   of an adornment to the system's software than a part of it.  [...]
>
> Note the two terms "functional", and "does a practical job" which
> essentially means the same thing as "for practical use".  These two
> terms are specifically associated with "fonts" above, and are
> contraindicators for "Non-functional Data".

Yes, though when I read this part, I thought to myself that
non-essential fonts could be regarded as an adornment to the system.

(My understanding is also that game artwork is often viewed as
non-functional data under the FSDG, even though I’d personally consider
that it “does a practical job”, much more than an optional font.)

Anyway the “License Rules” paragraph above makes it clear, I think, that
fonts may not be treated as non-functional data.

Thanks for clarifying!

Ludo’.

Message #25 received at 32916-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 32916-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:32:46 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I've added a comment warning about this issue in commit
848b3749b2e9741d2fb7c0cc531d7536474700c1.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.