font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free

Done

Details

4 participants

Gábor Boskovits
Leo Famulari
Ludovic Courtès
Mark H Weaver

Owner: unassigned

Submitted by: Leo Famulari

Severity: normal

Leo Famulari wrote on 2 Oct 2018 21:13

Recipients:(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)

Message-ID:20181002191330.GA12909@jasmine.lan

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

Gábor Boskovits wrote on 3 Oct 2018 11:27

Recipients:(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 32916@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:CAE4v=pgHnZ4EmNMJuE79vU3aB20imDC61U0EJtHutfp0to+BQw@mail.gmail.com

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> ezt írta (id?pont: 2018. okt. 2., K,

21:14):

Toggle quote (31 lines)> 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.

Toggle quote (3 lines)

> [0]

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

Attachment: file

Mark H Weaver wrote on 3 Oct 2018 21:33

Recipients:(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 32916@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87ftxmltaf.fsf@netris.org

Hi Leo,

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

Toggle quote (33 lines)> 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

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 3 Oct 2018 23:26

Recipients:(name . Mark H Weaver)(address . mhw@netris.org)

Message-ID:87zhvuk9hg.fsf@gnu.org

Hello,

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

Toggle quote (21 lines)> 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’.

Mark H Weaver wrote on 4 Oct 2018 02:28

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 32916@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:871s96lfmi.fsf@netris.org

Hi Ludovic,

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

Toggle quote (28 lines)> Mark H Weaver <mhw@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

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 4 Oct 2018 11:19

Recipients:(name . Mark H Weaver)(address . mhw@netris.org)(address . 32916@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:871s96ysqj.fsf@gnu.org

Hello Mark,

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

Toggle quote (2 lines)

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

Toggle quote (23 lines)>> 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.

Toggle quote (10 lines)> 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’.

Leo Famulari wrote on 26 Feb 2019 01:32

Recipients:(address . 32916-done@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:20190226003246.GA19737@jasmine.lan

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

848b3749b2e9741d2fb7c0cc531d7536474700c1.

Closed

Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 32916@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it

mumi current 32916

Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)

mumi am -- -s

Or, compose a reply to this issue

mumi compose

Or, send patches to this issue

mumi send-email *.patch

is:open	open issues
is:done	closed issues
submitter:<who>	search issue submitter
author:<who>	search by message author
date:yesterday..now	search by issue date
mdate:3m..2d	search by message date