Licensing a fonts.conf file

Asked by Anas Ramadan

There's a "font.conf" file published on:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Fonts#Manual%20Font%20Smoothing

I'm wondering: Is it legal to package and publish it (or a modified version of it) under a GPL license?

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
Ubuntu ubuntu-docs Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Anas Ramadan
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Cameron W (cwill747) said :
#1

The license for everything on the wiki is detailed here:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/License

Revision history for this message
Anas Ramadan (anas.ram) said :
#2

But actually this "part" of the wiki page has been imported from an external source, as it's mentioned:
http://linuxtuneup.blogspot.com/2005/11/fonts-lcd-optimized-similar-to.html
So, what's about the original work located over there? Can I license that work under GPL?

Revision history for this message
Eliah Kagan (degeneracypressure) said :
#3

If Obi Bok (who appears to be the creator of the fonts.conf file in question) posted the file on the Ubuntu wiki, then https://help.ubuntu.com/community/License applies to it. That is to say, it applies to the version of it on the Wiki. Does he have a *different* version of the file on his blog?

Revision history for this message
Anas Ramadan (anas.ram) said :
#4

Is he the one who posted this file?
However, it makes sense to use a creative commons license for wiki output witch is usually documents, but it desn't when it comes to codes.
May be the wiki pages should be relicensed under dual-licenses, including cc for documents, and GPL for codes.

The modified version is my work.

Revision history for this message
Eliah Kagan (degeneracypressure) said :
#5

The wiki says that the file was contributed by Obi Bok. I am not a lawyer, and this post does not constitute legal advice, but I doubt you have to meet a stronger burden, in order to be considered to be acting in good conscience in using the file in accordance with the wiki's license.

If you want to be sure, or you want to use it under a different license (say, a license more suitable for software), you can try to contact Obi Bok.

"May be the wiki pages should be relicensed under dual-licenses, including cc for documents, and GPL for codes."

You may want to search http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com for this idea, post in it if you find it, and create it otherwise. However, unless there are many wiki pages that contain code (perhaps there are, I'm not sure), I doubt there will be much impetus to complexify the licensing, especially considering that it might be difficult to relicense material already contributed.

Revision history for this message
Anas Ramadan (anas.ram) said :
#6

Thanks. I posted the idea here:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/28114/

And I sent a message to Obi, and waiting for his reply.

Revision history for this message
Anas Ramadan (anas.ram) said :
#7

In Jan 14, I received a reply from Obi says that "It was definitely GPL'd".

But legally, how can I prove that?! I asked him to announce this correction to public, but no reply so far.

Any advice please?

Revision history for this message
Anas Ramadan (anas.ram) said :
#8

My advice to me is to look carefully... :)
It's now GPL'd.

Thanks Obi.