Definition of "Substantially Changed"

Since the Vera family was made available for GNOME in 2003, libre font licenses that require modified version to be renamed have proliferated. Sometimes this is done in the copyright license, and sometimes it is done with a separate trademark license. A font license ought to harmonise copyright naming clauses with trademark rights vested in licensed works, such as to clarify that trademarks inherent in the licensed work are not transferred or otherwise authorized. It may be worthwhile for a license to suggest reviewing separate trademark licenses if they are provided alongside the copyright license.

The SIL OFLv1.1 has a ‘reserved font name’ feature that requires versions modified in any way at all to have a name with nothing in common to the original, unless permission is granted to each distributor of the font.

The Ubuntu Font License has a more refined approach, that takes into account two very different kinds of modification:

1. Modifications that do not meaningfully alter the typeface design overall but do change the font’s data representation. For designers, this means changing or adding glyphs in the same style. For engineers, web font services commonly do format conversion beyond mere compression, and subsetting (removing glyphs.) These examples ought to be allowed with use of the original name whilst visibly marking the work as modified, so users are not confused about the heritage of the work or that they are dealing with a modified version.

2. Works that are derived works under copyright but visibly different typeface designs ought to be required to be renamed totally, while acknowledging their heritage in their detailed metadata.

I believe a more refined approach to renaming requirements, very similar to the UFL's language, is an important innovation in libre font licensing that ought to be used in other libre font licenses.

However, the UFL's specific implementation of this refined renaming feature is not ideal. For a start, it is anglocentric - what about a designer in Brasil, or packagers wishing to localise derivaties? Also, it doesn't seem to take into account multiple Original Names in a chain of derived works - which makes sense in that it was written for the simple A-B case of Ubuntu-SomethingElse. This is something the SIL OFLv1.1 handles through the 'Reserved Font Name' system feature.

Then there is issue of the definition of 'Substantially Changed' which you raise. I believe a FAQ document from the License Steward with scenarios or actual case studies would help to clarify this.

My interpretation of the definition is that it speaks to the Original and Modified Versions of the "Font Software" which is the whole set of fonts in the family. The 'simple acid test' for that is to have a typographically rich Scribus document with many text boxes with varying lengths, sizes, and font variant choices, print it with the Original and Modified Versions, and see if they are dissimilar.

So if a single glyph is changed, even if the most commonly used glyph is radically changed (changing the latin 'a' to the Hindi 'एक' because the shape of 'a' offends you, for example ;-) that will trigger §2C ("Ubuntu derivative ...

I would like to change the comment above, but that's not possible. The new part should read:

- - - 8< - - -

1. Modifications that do not alter the typeface design at all but do change the font’s data representation. This applies in practice only to engineers, such as those making web font services, who will commonly do format conversion beyond mere compression (ttf2svg) and subsetting (removing glyphs.) These examples ought to be allowed with use of the original name, and marking the work as modified, so users are not confused about the heritage of the work or that they are dealing with a modified version. Perhaps only allowing use of the original name in part, and requiring notice that the work was modified in the name, is appropriate.

2. Modifications that do alter the typeface design but not in a way that make it an overall different typeface family. This applies to designers who add glyphs, or make various subtle changes - changing the width of a 's' here, changing the shape of the 'bowl' of the 'a' there, and changing the length of the ascenders to be different to the height of capitals. These examples ought to be allowed to use the original name in part while showing in the name that the work was modified.

3. Works that are visibly different overall typeface designs, yet that are derived works under copyright law, ought to be required to be renamed totally, while acknowledging their heritage in their detailed metadata.

- - - 8< - - -

 Hi!

 This reads much better and clearer indeed. Thanks for the suggestion.
There is one thing that I'd adjust for emphasis:

* Dave Crossland <email address hidden> [2010-10-10 03:47:45 CEST]:
> 2. Modifications that do alter the typeface design but not in a way that
> make it an overall different typeface family. This applies to designers
> who add glyphs, or make various subtle changes - changing the width of a
> 's' here, changing the shape of the 'bowl' of the 'a' there, and
> changing the length of the ascenders to be different to the height of
> capitals. These examples ought to be allowed to use the original name in
> part while showing in the name that the work was modified.

 Even though you use the term "These examples" after the examples, I
still would add directly after the hyphen a "for example, " entry, to
make it clear right from the start when reading that acceptable changes
aren't limited to those but that they are just examples.

 Appart from that it is a very good suggestion in my opinion and clears
up what I found confusing in the first place. It definitely reduces the
arguable parts fairly well, and I believe that it's not possible to get
rid of them completely.

 Thanks,
Rhonda

Could someone translate the above suggestions into formal legal text? Also where would this slot into the license?

Currently there are three definitions:

21 "Original Version" refers to the collection of Font Software components
22 as received under this licence.

24 "Modified Version" refers to any derivative made by adding to, deleting,
25 or substituting -- in part or in whole -- any of the components of the
26 Original Version, by changing formats or by porting the Font Software to
27 a new environment.

and

32 "Substantially Changed" refers to Modified Versions which can be easily
33 identified as dissimilar to the Font Software by users of the Font
34 Software comparing the Original Version with the Modified Version.

May I suggest changing to "Original Version", "Technically Modified Version", "Artistically Modified Version" and "Substantially Modified Version"?

Matt: you are certainly suggest improvements. As you're introducing four terms instead of three, could you expand on the thinking behind it?