Can the Ubuntu font license avoid advertising-style clause?

Hi Mukund

There are no restrictions on the use of the font, nor on your ability to
modify it. The only constraint is the choice of name, where we wish to
strike a balance between a completely fragmented naming landscape and
the right to diverge and head off in completely different directions.

On 17/01/11 15:05, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> These two sentences are incompatible for other users, if one assumes
> that "Ubuntu" is a trademark of Canonical. Due to the first sentence,
> one would prefer to avoid using the Ubuntu name if possible, which
> should be okay for a freely licensed work.

There's no need to avoid the use of the name Ubuntu, there's an implicit
right to use the name of the font in order to use the font :-)

> Clause 2 seems like an advertising clause, because it enforces the use
> of the name "Ubuntu" unless the font is changed substantially. Though
> there is an attempt to define "Substantially Changed", it still is not
> very clear to the layman (vs. a fontographer) what such changes may be.
>
> I request that you consider removing such an advertising clause from
> future versions of this license which enforces the name "Ubuntu", so
> that derived fonts may freely be named, similar to how derived free
> software can freely be renamed. If the font is indeed intended to be a
> copyleft free font, you should not have an objection to it.

If we believed that one of the standard copyleft free licenses was
appropriate, we would have used that. We think it's worth exploring
alternatives, and the fact that most open fonts use typography-specific
licenses is supportive of that. The clause you refer to is not an
advertising clause, you are not required to state that you are using the
font. It just affects derived works, which need to be either "part of
the Ubuntu font family" as variations, or completely distinct from it if
substantially modified.

 status invalid

Mark

Hello Mukund, thank you for getting involved, the bug-tracker is definitely the most suitable place to raise a concern like this. and I appreciate you taking the time to raise this.

My understanding of an "advertising clause" is that found in the old problematic BSD four-clause licence:

  3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: "This product includes software developed by the <organization>."

This is (or anything similar nature) is not present in the Ubuntu Font Licence 1.0, at least as far as I can see! Is this what you also had in mind?

For the case of trademarks, it is the *point of use* that matters (what is done with them). For example, you are allowed to /use/ fonts from Apple, Microsoft, Monotype or Canonical, but through doing so, you are not allowed to pretend that you /are/ Apple, Microsoft, Monotype or Canonical (as this would be "passing off"). In free software terms, you are allowed to use and distribute GNU Emacs, but not allowed to pretend that you /are/ GNU or the Free Software Foundation—neither can you pretend that you _created_ GNU Emacs.

If it helps, think about a proprietary font licence... you can still generally use that typeface on your website and in your invoice documents. The interium Ubuntu Font Licence grants you more (lots more) in addition to that: it grants you freedom and even the ability to modify and you even get the source code (unheard of with proprietary font licences).

So going back to your specific query: Q: "We are going to launch an internet shop for open hardware projects soon. ... looking for a nice free typeface to use in web graphics, documents such as purchase orders," A: Yes, you are welcome to use the Ubuntu Font Family as your online font (in fact I'd actively encourage it!). What you can *not* do is to call the website "Ubuntu Hardware dot Com" as either the company name or domain (but this is nothing to do with the font or the font licence, it's just reminding you that this is the case). If you're just *using* the fonts. you are unlikely to be needing to modify the font, so the names clauses won't be such of an issue in your case. Just sent all of your documents and website to use font-family: "Ubuntu" and it should work like magic!

The easiest way to use the Ubuntu Font Family on your website is with the Google Font API; this also helps to ensure that you automatically get extra features and bug fixes as and when they become available. See the instruction at:

  http://font.ubuntu.com/web/

By the way, it's lovely to see examples of people using the Ubuntu Font Family and I'm thinking of putting together an online gallery of all the uses that people have found, so please do send in an example or a link after you've done it! (Of course, you don't have to if you don't want to).

Hope that helps, please let me know if you're like to me try and answer any point further.

Hi all

It is a delight to read such gentle answers. Thank you for not coming down like a ton of bricks. I expected tougher replies.

I am satisfied with the explanations given above. I merely want to use and redistribute this typeface freely without restrictions, similar to how we all use free software. I have no need or desire to modify it.

In response to what was asked about "advertising clause", it is not about the BSD license, but what the result of forcing the "Ubuntu" name is. Everything that uses the font has the name "Ubuntu" embedded in it, identifying the original source/vendor. This by itself is not bad as long as we can freely use it (and anyone who wishes so is able to create derivatives of this font).

Thank you for the answers.

Mukund