4

If I want to bundle fonts and images with an application released under the GPL, are there specific requirements for the license of these assets?

Armand
  • 6,508
  • 4
  • 37
  • 53

4 Answers4

3

Such a thing is called an aggregate, GPL FAQ states:

An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each program's individual license would grant them. Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

vartec
  • 20,760
  • 1
  • 52
  • 98
  • thanks this is very informative. Not sure it would necessarily apply in this case though, as "If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program." This could well be the case with icons or fonts. – Armand Apr 01 '11 at 16:15
  • 1
    @Alison - typical applications don't embed the icons / fonts in the executable. Rather they are copied into the application's installation tree. – Stephen C Apr 03 '11 at 10:18
  • Ah, I see the distinction. So as long as the right to *distribute* the media exists, then it shouldn't be an issue? – Armand Apr 03 '11 at 12:25
  • This answer is correct :) +1 – Tim Post Apr 03 '11 at 17:17
  • Disagree. GPLv3 section5 defines an "aggregation" as *"A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program..."*. If the fonts are resources used by the program internally (rather than as input data), I believe they are "extensions" if not an integral part. – ivan_pozdeev Feb 27 '15 at 01:24
1

I am not a lawyer, and your question is properly addressed to a lawyer.

I am, however, a somewhat-educated layman, who has been interested in copyright law for a lot of years.

My off-the-cuff educated layman's first guess is that you'd better make certain that you have the rights to redistribute those assets (fonts and images) AND the rights to allow others to redistribute them, AND you need to have the documentation in your possession, in hardcopy form (printed, not on disk) to prove it.

At least one of the people who receives your distro package is going to make copies of it and pass it along to a few thousand of his closest friends. Another one is going to throw a copy onto BitTorrent before she even unZips it. This is just human behavior in the world of free software. When this happens, if you DON'T have those rights, the owner of the rights is going to come looking for SOMEONE to eviscerate and bankrupt, and the odds are pretty good that you, as the original offender, will be very high on their prioritized target list. At that point, you will need that proof.

You need it in hardcopy form to insure yourself against a computer or disk crash. (They happen. You don't want to add several hundred to a few thousand dollars in disk recovery charges to your already-painful potential legal bills.)

John R. Strohm
  • 18,043
  • 5
  • 46
  • 56
  • I understand where you're coming from, but I find it fairly disappointing that you're so quick to point to lawyers when I'm asking for common interpretation of a popular, established software license. – Armand Apr 01 '11 at 14:21
  • 1
    The problem with the GPL, is that there is no common interpretation of that license--particularly when you look at the edge cases. – Berin Loritsch Apr 01 '11 at 16:49
  • @Alison, when you want an opinion you can bet your bank accounts and 401Ks and IRAs on, AND THAT'S THE BET YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PLACING HERE, you want to talk to someone know KNOWS the subject. People like us do computers all day long, every day, for a living. Lawyers do law all day long, every day, for a living (at least when they're not ...). – John R. Strohm Apr 02 '11 at 03:50
  • @Berin interesting; any idea why that is? – Armand Apr 02 '11 at 23:11
  • @Alison, there's plenty of reasons. Not the least of which is that not everyone agrees with Richard Stallman's interpretation of his own document. I've run into many well meaning people who use the license, unaware of the implications of some of the words. Earlier this year, I worked with a lawyer who specializes in GPL related cases about how we intended to use a particular piece of software. When we presented our concerns to the company who maintained it, they were surprised by what our lawyer pointed out. It's not how _they_ meant the application to be restricted. – Berin Loritsch Apr 02 '11 at 23:34
  • @Berin that would explain why big corporates are so wary of using GPL'd stuff... although I'd think they could get some decent lawyers in to work it out once and for all. Law sounds complicated. – Armand Apr 03 '11 at 09:31
  • Law _is_ complicated--more so than the English language. You think there are exceptions to everything with spelling rules, you ain't seen nothin' yet. A big reason why big corporations are wary of using GPL'd stuff is precisely because they get lawyers in to truly understand the implications. Bottom line: using a GPL'd tool to build a product is OK; incorporating a GPL'd library into a project you want to remain proprietary is not OK for most corporations. Things get clear as mud when you introduce LGPL and AGPL. – Berin Loritsch Apr 03 '11 at 12:28
  • @Berin: The GPL is straightforward when you are using GPLed software in the spirit of the GPL. It is tricky only in the edge cases, or when somebody wants to incorporate it into an otherwise proprietary project. – David Thornley May 02 '11 at 14:01
  • @David Thornley, you are correct. Unfortunately many of us have been requested to do something that was not in the spirit of the GPL at some point in time or another. My typical response in those cases is to avoid the GPLd library and use an ASL or BSD licensed version that does the same thing. _Use_ isn't the problem, _extension_ and _distribution_ are where the problems start to creep in. – Berin Loritsch May 02 '11 at 16:31
  • @Berin: My typical response was to tell my manager about potential issues, and let him or her decide what to do. My job has never been to deal with higher-level business issues (as opposed to helping people do their job better). – David Thornley May 02 '11 at 17:11
  • Poorly worded. My typical response is to _advise_ the client to do what I said. In the Java world, this is very easy to do, because GPL projects are typically behind the ASL/BSD projects. In a C/C++ world the reverse is true. However, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the potential issues. – Berin Loritsch May 02 '11 at 17:14
1

I don't believe they need a GPL compatible license. To be on the safe side the rules I follow are:

If they are compiled into the executable or are required for the program to work, then they would also need a GPL compatible license. Things like toolbar buttons and icons.

However, if they are just in the installer / archive and aren't required, then I'd say no. Things like fonts that get copied into the OS font directory or sample images.

But it gets even more confusing, for example Firefox is released under the GPL, but the logo isn't free to use. Only official builds may use it.

FigBug
  • 2,369
  • 3
  • 17
  • 20
1

As a practical matter, you might look at the licenses used for popular collections such as GNOME art themes, as well as OSI and CC.

trashgod
  • 158
  • 4