Fonts sit at a peculiar crossroads in the software license-compliance world. They contain executable instructions as well as static, visual data. They are binary files that, even when "open", are often shipped without source code. They are sensitive to namespace collision problems but are only exposed in user interfaces by name. The files themselves are governed by copyright, but the design they encode is not considered copyrightable in the US and other jurisdictions. Furthermore, the typemaking industry has long vacillated on the appropriateness of reviving, reusing, and extending earlier works as new designs.

This talk provides an overview of the intellectual-property law and the community norms that concern sharing, reusing, and extending typeface designs. It highlights several specific issues relevant to modern digital font projects:

• The law has struggled to keep up with industry practices on the subject of copying a competitor's type design. In the cold-metal era, foundries routinely copied and sold designs originating from the competition, even mechanically reproducing metal type in bulk. When digital fonts arrived in the 20th Century, the files themselves were originally not regarded as intellectual property, and wholesale copying picked up once again. Today, the files are considered copyrighted, but the designs are not. This can leave users in an uncertain position, as modern tools allow designs to be copied digitally, without copying the original file, and the law has not drawn clear lines around what practices are permissible. • Reviving a historical typeface is generally considered an acceptable practice if the design process begins with primary materials (such as metal types, proofs, or out-of-copyright prints). There is fierce disagreement, however, about how far in the past a designer must go before a typeface is considered fair game; revivals of typefaces that were "works for hire" by a corporate foundry or printer in particular are controversial because ownership of the intellectual property is debatable. Moreover, there is disagreement about how the original designers of a typeface can and should be credited in a revival, particularly when the revival makes alternations and updates. Users need to be particularly aware of these issues when selecting typefaces for branding and advertising purposes, which can attract public criticism. • Font names can attract more attention than the visual design itself, for the simple reason that installed fonts are, traditionally, searchable and accessible on computer systems only by their name. Name collisions between fonts are increasingly common, yet little effort has gone into addressing these collisions through trademark law. • The leading license used for free-software fonts, the SIL Open Font License (OFL), is often misunderstood, and those misunderstandings can place developers and users of open fonts in a bind on compliance issues. For example, the OFL does not require source-code availability, but it does include restrictions limiting the circumstances under which the fonts can be sold. It also includes an optional clause that, at the licensor's discretion, requires users to change the user-visible name of the font if any alteration is made to the binary, including common practices like subsetting the font to deliver it over the web. Downstream projects that user OFL-licensed fonts and assume that the OFL is broadly compatible with common free-software licenses may not be aware when license-compliance problems occur.

There are no easy answers for resolving these issues in free software, but this talk will provide developers and communities with advice for identifying and coping with licensing issues relating to the fonts that they utilize in their projects.