Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

pixelambacht.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#81

Post by bryanrasmussen »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #74
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the repo is the source for the website then the license is de facto forbidding people from open sourcing their websites if they pay for a font for it. However the license does not explicitly limit the tools you can use to build the website, and the website is allowed by the license to have the font. The argument could be made by licensing the font for a website they have implicitly licensed it to be on github beca…

Either: You can open source the website without the font and say you open sourced your website, or if you consider the font part of your website, it means your website isn't open source... even if you put it on GitHub. Because it's a copyright violation for someone to use that font. Your best bet is to just use open source fonts, of which there are numerous.

I think in the end as to whether or not you can put the font in your website and have it public on github (which is not necessarily the same as not encumbered by licensing issues) will need to be determined by the courts when and if someone wants to test the issue.

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#82

Post by pmoriarty »

I've always found it interesting how the term "piracy" has been mostly unquestioningly accepted by the media as the appropriate term to use for copying, which arguably doesn't steal anything (unlike what has traditionally been known as piracy before the digital age).

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#83

Post by jzunit »

Brendinooo wrote: post #64
jzunit wrote: post #6

Been doing searches for "site:github.com .ttf" for years. This is a feature not a bug.

Yikes. You ever try making a font? Do you know how many hours it takes and what kind of profit margins you're eating into?

The profit margins we are eating into is exactly ZERO. Why? because if most of the time i need to actually pay for it, i'll just use the cheaper alternative: Google Fonts.

There will be times when I need to use this font and make something that will go live. That's the time to buy a font.

If font making is not profitable, then don't make fonts.

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#84

Post by amyjess »

pavlov wrote: post #11
Nextgrid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t it then be legal to make your own font (so you own the copyright on the computer code) representing a commercial typeface?

Yes. That’s why Windows bundled Arial instead of Helvetica. Although the design of Arial is slightly modified, it’s fundamentally a straightforward Helvetica clone with metrics compatibility (you can plug it in a layout in place of Helvetica and not break anything).

Arial is a bizarre case: it's actually Monotype Grotesque stretched and pinched to match the proportions of Helvetica.

So you can replace Helvetica with Arial in any document and it'll still print right, but at its core the letterforms are just distorted Grotesque MT.

And it's not the only font Microsoft and Monotype collaborated on like this. For example, Century Gothic is Monotype's Twentieth Century distorted to match ITC Avant Garde's metrics.

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#85

Post by mjbmitch »

Gracana wrote: post #5

What's the difference between putting webfonts on your public website vs putting them on your public github? This seems like a distinction that only lawyers would care about, but I'm not a web developer (and I don't know much about webfonts) so maybe there's something I'm missing.

Distribution licenses are something people other than lawyers ought to care about.

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#86

Post by Nightshaxx »

roywiggins wrote: post #37
c3534l wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not like a webpage renders an image for you and then you rend an image: you send the user a font so that they can render the page themselves with that font. It's being distributed either way.

Licenses can totally distinguish between the two scenarios. Providing a clickable link to "Download Font Here!" is probably not allowed, but linking to the font for the purpose of displaying the actual webpage is fine. Even if they're the same url. This is just bit coloring again: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

But that's what the GitHub problem is. People are adding the font so people can use the application they made.

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#87

Post by shkkmo »

yeahforsureman wrote: post #80
gregmac wrote: post #40

If I use a commercial font as part of my website design, I am in fact publishing that font on my site and anyone can obtain a copy of it -- in fact, they automatically do merely by visiting my site! Does this mean all my visitors are "pirating"? Of course not. Github may make the font more accessible/searchable, but that doesn't change anything about the copyright status of the font. Me publishing something on Github…

The article is obviously mainly referring to font files under desktop font licenses that certainly don't usually allow publishing the files on Github or serving them as part of your site. (While irrelevant: As for the technical difference or lack of between the two, from a license drafting perspective, it wouldn't really matter since you could easily write in the distinction to eg. the allowed purpose part of the lic…

> You set up your new web project, plunk your webfonts alongside other assets like images and JavaScript libraries, and commit your stuff to a public repo on Github. Not realising that this violates the license of the commercial fonts, you now made them available to anyone who can use Github’s search function. It happens — apparently.

> So, what to do when you want to use commercial fonts and be legit about it?

> Long story short, you can’t commit them to a public repository. There’s really no way around it: if you are not allowed to share the font with folks who don’t fall under its license, you can’t make it a part of your repo.

> Your options are to go for a private repo, or keep a note in your public repo telling the folks who’ll be using your project to license the fonts and add ‘em themselves. Stick your assets/fonts directory in a .gitignore so you’ll never accidentally commit them, and Bob’s your uncle.

It clearly isn't obvious. It seems explicit to me that the author is talking about all commercial fonts and that NONE of them should be in public github repos.

For an article that spends such a long time talking about how they searched for filenames, there is very little time spent exploring the actual copyright implications of using licensed fonts in opensource software or .

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#88

Post by roywiggins »

Nightshaxx wrote: post #86
roywiggins wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Licenses can totally distinguish between the two scenarios. Providing a clickable link to "Download Font Here!" is probably not allowed, but linking to the font for the purpose of displaying the actual webpage is fine. Even if they're the same url. This is just bit coloring again: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

But that's what the GitHub problem is. People are adding the font so people can use the application they made.

Font licenses make the difference very, very clear.

> The following are allowed by this agreement; you may:

> 1b. Use the WOFF, WOFF2, and EOT web font formats provided by Process to style text on your websites via the CSS @font-face rule for an unlimited number of websites whose content is controlled by you. You agree to use reasonable measures to ensure the fonts are available only for the process of styling text on websites. At a minimum, and by way of illustration not limitation, reasonable measures include i) preventing unlicensed third-party access, i.e. hotlinking and, ii) not allowing direct download of the fonts unrelated to the process of styling text for your website.

and

> This agreement expressly prohibits the following; you may not:

> 2e. Store or use the fonts in any way that makes them accessible to the public or non-licensed third parties, except where such use is expressly allowed by this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, distribution of the fonts through file sharing services and online version control repositories accessible by the public.

https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#89

Post by roywiggins »

Gracana wrote: post #5

What's the difference between putting webfonts on your public website vs putting them on your public github? This seems like a distinction that only lawyers would care about, but I'm not a web developer (and I don't know much about webfonts) so maybe there's something I'm missing.

The people who draft these licenses are pretty smart and explain VERY CLEARLY what is and is not allowed. For instance!

> The following are allowed by this agreement; you may:

> 1b. Use the WOFF, WOFF2, and EOT web font formats provided by Process to style text on your websites via the CSS @font-face rule for an unlimited number of websites whose content is controlled by you. You agree to use reasonable measures to ensure the fonts are available only for the process of styling text on websites. At a minimum, and by way of illustration not limitation, reasonable measures include i) preventing unlicensed third-party access, i.e. hotlinking and, ii) not allowing direct download of the fonts unrelated to the process of styling text for your website.

and

> This agreement expressly prohibits the following; you may not:

> 2e. Store or use the fonts in any way that makes them accessible to the public or non-licensed third parties, except where such use is expressly allowed by this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, distribution of the fonts through file sharing services and online version control repositories accessible by the public.

https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...

Seems pretty clear!

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#90

Post by mcrider »

ryukafalz wrote: post #65
mcrider wrote: post #39

I've been doing this for years -- Its a PIA dealing with each font foundry's DRM system and getting it to work on my local dev environment. When I go live, I deal with it but its also such a hassle to get clients to pay for a font, give me the required info to use the foundry's DRM, etc. I bet if a foundry used an honor system (give fonts away for free, charge a per-site license for commercial use) they'd still make…

Wait, this is a thing? If I were ever asked to install some DRM to render a font I'd nuke that thing from my system in a heartbeat.

I use the term DRM loosely (possibly incorrectly!). What I mean is that most font foundries make you include a CSS or JS file that only loads the requested fonts for a domain or domains you specify in their backend.
Post reply on HN