From psatpute at redhat.com Thu Dec 27 08:57:19 2012 From: psatpute at redhat.com (Pravin Satpute) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:27:19 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt Message-ID: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> Hi All, With the recent discussions on Fedora fonts list, we have decided to drop RFN from Lohit fonts. I have done changes in master branch. Bug related for Dropping RFN is at https://fedorahosted.org/lohit/ticket/8 Changes are: 1. Dropped RFN line from OFL.txt 2. Added Trademark line in COPYRIGHT file Will do release in next couple of days. Let me know if anyone has any suggestion in this regards. Regards, Pravin Satpute From dave at lab6.com Thu Dec 27 11:04:12 2012 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:04:12 +0000 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt In-Reply-To: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> References: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> Message-ID: On 27 December 2012 08:57, Pravin Satpute wrote: > 2. Added Trademark line in COPYRIGHT file I am very confused - this contradicts the idea of dropping of the RFN. From rfontana at redhat.com Thu Dec 27 15:23:52 2012 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:23:52 -0500 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt In-Reply-To: References: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20121227152352.GA1986@redhat.com> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:04:12AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 27 December 2012 08:57, Pravin Satpute wrote: > > 2. Added Trademark line in COPYRIGHT file > > I am very confused - this contradicts the idea of dropping of the RFN. That statement itself seems to contradict something you said on this list on 6 December 2012 regarding Overpass: If 'Overpass' is considered a valuable Red Hat trademark, I'd personally suggest declaring trademark notices alongside copyright notices for both licenses. (unless I misunderstood it). In any case, I don't see a contradiction. The RFN is used to add a trademark-like copyright condition to the OFL. The trademark notice is just a trademark notice. - RF From dave at lab6.com Thu Dec 27 15:25:41 2012 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:25:41 +0000 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt In-Reply-To: <20121227152352.GA1986@redhat.com> References: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> <20121227152352.GA1986@redhat.com> Message-ID: On 27 December 2012 15:23, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:04:12AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: >> On 27 December 2012 08:57, Pravin Satpute wrote: >> > 2. Added Trademark line in COPYRIGHT file >> >> I am very confused - this contradicts the idea of dropping of the RFN. > > That statement itself seems to contradict something you said on this > list on 6 December 2012 regarding Overpass: > > If 'Overpass' is considered a valuable Red Hat trademark, I'd > personally suggest declaring trademark notices alongside copyright > notices for both licenses. > > (unless I misunderstood it). > > In any case, I don't see a contradiction. The RFN is used to add a > trademark-like copyright condition to the OFL. The trademark notice is > just a trademark notice. Right - but Pravin said, >> > we have decided to drop RFN from Lohit fonts. which suggest removing trademark notices also. Cheers Dave From rfontana at redhat.com Fri Dec 28 00:07:03 2012 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:07:03 -0500 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt In-Reply-To: References: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> <20121227152352.GA1986@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20121228000703.GA2098@redhat.com> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 03:25:41PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 27 December 2012 15:23, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:04:12AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> On 27 December 2012 08:57, Pravin Satpute wrote: > >> > 2. Added Trademark line in COPYRIGHT file > >> > >> I am very confused - this contradicts the idea of dropping of the RFN. > > > > That statement itself seems to contradict something you said on this > > list on 6 December 2012 regarding Overpass: > > > > If 'Overpass' is considered a valuable Red Hat trademark, I'd > > personally suggest declaring trademark notices alongside copyright > > notices for both licenses. > > > > (unless I misunderstood it). > > > > In any case, I don't see a contradiction. The RFN is used to add a > > trademark-like copyright condition to the OFL. The trademark notice is > > just a trademark notice. > > Right - but Pravin said, > > >> > we have decided to drop RFN from Lohit fonts. > > which suggest removing trademark notices also. Ah, I see - I think I did misunderstand your earlier comment. I now understand you to have been saying "if the name is so important, why not include *both* the RFN and a conventional trademark notice". I instead had thought you meant "why bother to use the RFN mechanism - if the name is so important you can just include a trademark notice". In any case, I don't see the harm in the project maintainer including the trademark notice. - RF From dave at lab6.com Fri Dec 28 00:22:25 2012 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:22:25 +0000 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt In-Reply-To: <20121228000703.GA2098@redhat.com> References: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> <20121227152352.GA1986@redhat.com> <20121228000703.GA2098@redhat.com> Message-ID: On 28 December 2012 00:07, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 03:25:41PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: >> On 27 December 2012 15:23, Richard Fontana wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:04:12AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: >> >> On 27 December 2012 08:57, Pravin Satpute wrote: >> >> > 2. Added Trademark line in COPYRIGHT file >> >> >> >> I am very confused - this contradicts the idea of dropping of the RFN. >> > >> > That statement itself seems to contradict something you said on this >> > list on 6 December 2012 regarding Overpass: >> > >> > If 'Overpass' is considered a valuable Red Hat trademark, I'd >> > personally suggest declaring trademark notices alongside copyright >> > notices for both licenses. >> > >> > (unless I misunderstood it). >> > >> > In any case, I don't see a contradiction. The RFN is used to add a >> > trademark-like copyright condition to the OFL. The trademark notice is >> > just a trademark notice. >> >> Right - but Pravin said, >> >> >> > we have decided to drop RFN from Lohit fonts. >> >> which suggest removing trademark notices also. > > Ah, I see - I think I did misunderstand your earlier comment. I now > understand you to have been saying "if the name is so important, why > not include *both* the RFN and a conventional trademark notice". Right - or, more importantly, "if the name is not so important, don't use an RFN and don't use a conventional trademark notice" - and I suggest the names can not be important to font projects that are developed in public, since public development requires lots of copies being distributed all over the place with the reserved name. Unless such projects are set up for development with a 'code name' and then releases are carefully made with the 'product name' that includes the RFN and trademark notices. Since Lohit and Overpass are not developed like that, but are developed publicly, and those names don't seem important to Red Hat, i suggest dropping RFN and Trademark notices. > I instead had thought you meant "why bother to use the RFN mechanism - > if the name is so important you can just include a trademark notice". No, that's not what I meant :-) > In any case, I don't see the harm in the project maintainer including > the trademark notice. It seems harmful to send mixed messages about if downstream users should consider the name as restricted or not. From rfontana at redhat.com Fri Dec 28 01:16:24 2012 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:16:24 -0500 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt In-Reply-To: References: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> <20121227152352.GA1986@redhat.com> <20121228000703.GA2098@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20121228011624.GB2098@redhat.com> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:22:25AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 28 December 2012 00:07, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 03:25:41PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> On 27 December 2012 15:23, Richard Fontana wrote: > >> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:04:12AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> >> On 27 December 2012 08:57, Pravin Satpute wrote: > >> >> > 2. Added Trademark line in COPYRIGHT file > >> >> > >> >> I am very confused - this contradicts the idea of dropping of the RFN. > >> > > >> > That statement itself seems to contradict something you said on this > >> > list on 6 December 2012 regarding Overpass: > >> > > >> > If 'Overpass' is considered a valuable Red Hat trademark, I'd > >> > personally suggest declaring trademark notices alongside copyright > >> > notices for both licenses. > >> > > >> > (unless I misunderstood it). > >> > > >> > In any case, I don't see a contradiction. The RFN is used to add a > >> > trademark-like copyright condition to the OFL. The trademark notice is > >> > just a trademark notice. > >> > >> Right - but Pravin said, > >> > >> >> > we have decided to drop RFN from Lohit fonts. > >> > >> which suggest removing trademark notices also. > > > > Ah, I see - I think I did misunderstand your earlier comment. I now > > understand you to have been saying "if the name is so important, why > > not include *both* the RFN and a conventional trademark notice". > > Right - or, more importantly, "if the name is not so important, don't > use an RFN and don't use a conventional trademark notice" - and I > suggest the names can not be important to font projects that are > developed in public, since public development requires lots of copies > being distributed all over the place with the reserved name. To be clear, the inclusion of the trademark notice is not a designation of the associated name as "reserved" in the sense the drafters of the SIL OFL seem to have intended. I understand Pravin to agree that the RFN mechanism is misguided in at least the case of Lohit and Liberation fonts. > > I instead had thought you meant "why bother to use the RFN mechanism - > > if the name is so important you can just include a trademark notice". > > No, that's not what I meant :-) > > > In any case, I don't see the harm in the project maintainer including > > the trademark notice. > > It seems harmful to send mixed messages about if downstream users > should consider the name as restricted or not. The absence of a trademark notice wouldn't change the situation; at most I think what you're saying (combined with how I'm looking at it) is that absence of RFN and absence of trademark notice will give users a false impression that Red Hat retains no trademark interest in the font name. This possibility suggests there may be something positive in retention of the trademark notice as a substitute for the abandoned RFN practice, though admittedly for software projects we do not routinely include trademark notices. I do not consider retention of the trademark notice to be necessary. But, as owner of the trademarks in question, Red Hat is leaving the decision whether to include the trademark notice to the project maintainer's discretion. If the trademark notice causes some unanticipated problem we can find a way to clear that up. - RF From psatpute at redhat.com Fri Dec 28 04:31:00 2012 From: psatpute at redhat.com (Pravin Satpute) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:01:00 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt In-Reply-To: References: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> <20121227152352.GA1986@redhat.com> Message-ID: <50DD2084.4030301@redhat.com> On ??????? 27 ??????? 2012 08:55 ?.??., Dave Crossland wrote: > On 27 December 2012 15:23, Richard Fontana wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:04:12AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: >>> On 27 December 2012 08:57, Pravin Satpute wrote: >>>> 2. Added Trademark line in COPYRIGHT file >>> I am very confused - this contradicts the idea of dropping of the RFN. >> That statement itself seems to contradict something you said on this >> list on 6 December 2012 regarding Overpass: >> >> If 'Overpass' is considered a valuable Red Hat trademark, I'd >> personally suggest declaring trademark notices alongside copyright >> notices for both licenses. >> >> (unless I misunderstood it). >> >> In any case, I don't see a contradiction. The RFN is used to add a >> trademark-like copyright condition to the OFL. The trademark notice is >> just a trademark notice. > Right - but Pravin said, > >>>> we have decided to drop RFN from Lohit fonts. > which suggest removing trademark notices also. I understood the concern you raised regarding distributed font development. I think we need some protection from License itself for this purpose. Regards, Pravin Satpute From samjnaa at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 06:00:35 2012 From: samjnaa at gmail.com (Shriramana Sharma) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:30:35 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt In-Reply-To: <50DD2084.4030301@redhat.com> References: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> <20121227152352.GA1986@redhat.com> <50DD2084.4030301@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Pravin Satpute wrote: > I understood the concern you raised regarding distributed font > development. I think we need some protection from License itself for > this purpose. Hello. I have now read up the previous thread on the fonts list as well (I'm not a member there). Forgive me if I have not understood any of the previous statements (of the various people) but this is my take on the issue: 1) It is remarked that the FOS world has double standards between fonts vs software as regards licensing. May I submit that there are possibly a few valid reasons for this?: a) It is far easier to muck up a font and distribute it than a program. I mean, to make changes to a program and still have it even compile/execute means that modifier has at least followed the syntax of the respective language, so you can't just go in there and muck things up all that easily. But one can very easily muck up a font by opening it up in the freely available FontForge, altering points here and there, and saving it back. One doesn't even need to know any syntax or such. So a font creator would naturally be more concerned about his/her work being munged up and redistributed IMHO. b) For a font, visual beauty is more important, whereas for a program, functionality is more important. It is more natural to perceive a font as a work of art than a program (from the user's perspective I mean). c) A font is more ubiquitous than a program -- it crosses over into physical media also, again strengthening its perception as "more" a work of art than a program. Perhaps I could give a few more reasons, but I suppose the above would be sufficient. Anyhow, I support the concept of having RFNs in general. IIUC even the GPL says it's OK to place a requirement on GPLed software to be renamed in case of modifications. As for trademarks vs RFNs, I suppose trademark (as applied to fonts) is just a more official legalized version of RFN. Effectively both TMs and RFNs say "you can't use this name for anything other than what I'm distributing to you unless you have my permission". I suppose the Firefox/Iceweasel thing would be a appropriate precedent in this. As regards the WOFF thing, I suppose a future version of the OFL could provide a clause for automatic permission to use the RFN for WOFF or such technical format modifications which do not alter the appearance of the glyphs significantly or affect the smart functioning of the font. But such clauses might be fraught with problems, so I suppose a FAQ clarification is best. Anyhow, all this is general stuff. As for the Lohit fonts (to which I have also contributed my mite in Tamil and Devanagari) I have no objections to removing the RFN if the project maintainers and other contributors feel like it, but I think that one should not replace the RFN with a trademark notice as then the removal of the RFN would be meaningless. -- Shriramana Sharma From rfontana at redhat.com Fri Dec 28 07:26:49 2012 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 02:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt In-Reply-To: References: <50DC0D6F.7080008@redhat.com> <20121227152352.GA1986@redhat.com> <50DD2084.4030301@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20121228072649.GB4047@redhat.com> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:30:35AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > As for trademarks vs RFNs, I suppose trademark (as applied to fonts) > is just a more official legalized version of RFN. Effectively both TMs > and RFNs say "you can't use this name for anything other than what I'm > distributing to you unless you have my permission". I suppose the > Firefox/Iceweasel thing would be a appropriate precedent in this. There is a subtle difference here. SIL OFL says: No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the corresponding Copyright Holder. I read this as meaning that if a Modified Version uses the RFN, the person exercising the copyright permissions granted by the SIL OFL loses their copyright license. Whereas without the RFN designation, the font licensor may still have trademark ownership of the font name, and some modifications might infringe the trademark. But that's true of software names too. Anyway, free software licenses do fine without RFN-style clauses (I can only think of a few, rarely used licenses that have something like them). > Anyhow, all this is general stuff. As for the Lohit fonts (to which I > have also contributed my mite in Tamil and Devanagari) I have no > objections to removing the RFN if the project maintainers and other > contributors feel like it, but I think that one should not replace the > RFN with a trademark notice as then the removal of the RFN would be > meaningless. As previously noted I do not agree that removal of RFN is made meaningless merely by inclusion of a trademark notice. - RF