How to restore SIL OFL granted to me if it has become null and void?

Hi,

I’m not sure but I’m afraid that I might have broken the terms of SIL Open Font License because I’m afraid that have given other people some font softwares which must be distributed under SIL OFL without giving them the whole set of the font softwares or/and the text of the copyright notice and the license along with the font softwares.

Among the related font softwares could be Adobe’s Source Han Sans font family. But there are much information in the properties of the font files itself such as information indicating the font is licensed under SIL OFL and copyrighted by Adobe.

Am I still allowed to use the related font softwares?

If I’ve broken the terms of SIL OFL of a font software and the license granted to me has become null and void, how can I restore the license so that I can continue using the font software?

Thanks.

If the font contains the original copyright statement and OFL license (or a link to it), then the basic requirement of the OFL has been met, and there’s nothing else you need to do.

We recommend that you also include the original OFL.txt and FONTLOG.txt files, but that is not a strict requirement of the license.

Hi Sir,

I just found that there’s no link to the OFL license in the “License description” field of the Properties of the font files, it is just a line of text:

The Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. This Font Software is distributed on an “AS IS” BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the SIL Open Font License for the specific language, permissions and limitations governing your use of this Font Software.

Am I still allowed to use the related font softwares?

If I’ve broken the terms of SIL OFL of a font software and the license granted to me has become null and void, how can I restore the license so that I can continue using the font software?

Thanks!

It is not necessary to have a link. There is nothing else you need to do.

VictorG,

Thanks for your reply!

But I have another question.

I just found that I have a folder “Noto-hinted” that consists of a list of Noto series fonts and an OFL text file.

There’s a file named “NotoSansCJKtc-DemiLight.otf”.

However, in the properties of the file, under the Details tab, there’s only one field named “Type” has a value which is"OpenType font file", other fields, including “Copyright” and “License Description”, are all empty.

When I tried to open and install the file, Windows showed a message informing me that the file is not a valid font file.

I didn’t know if I have given anyone this file or not, but if I have given anyone this file without giving them the OFL text file, did I violate the terms of SIL OFL?

Thanks.

Noto is not an SIL font so if you have problems you need to contact Google. If you give an OFL font to others you must include the OFL info. If this Noto font does not have the proper license information in the font or in accompanying files then you need to provide it.

Hi VictorG,

Because the fonts are licensed under SIL OFL, so I’m seeking help from SIL regarding questions about SIL OFL.

After your previous reply, I’ve become unsure whether your replies to my previous questions are still valid or not.

Actually, I have two issues in this thread.
The first one is more important to me.

First issue:

I’m afraid that I have given other people some font software (e.g., Source Han Sans fonts and some Noto fonts) which are licensed under SIL OFL 1.1 without giving them the whole set of the font softwares or/and a separate file containing the text of the copyright notice and the license along with the font softwares.

But there is much information in the properties of each of the font files, such as the copyright notice and the information indicating the font is licensed under SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1 (but not the full text of the license or a link to the license).

If I’ve given other people the font files described as above, have I violated the SIL OFL 1.1 License?

Second issue:

I found that I have a folder “Noto-hinted” that consists of a list of Noto series fonts and an OFL text file.

In the folder, there’s a file named “NotoSansCJKtc-DemiLight.otf" that when I tried to open and install, Windows showed me a message indicating the file is not a valid font file.
(Noto Sans CJK fonts are licensed under SIL OFL 1.1.)

However, in the properties of the file, under the Details tab, there’s only one field named “Type” has a value which is"OpenType font file", other fields, including “Copyright” and “License Description”, are all empty.

If I’ve given anyone this file (invalid font file) without giving them the SIL OFL 1.1 full text file and the copyright notice, did I violate the terms of SIL OFL?

Thanks, and may you be well and happy!

First issue: It sounds like there is a reference to the OFL in the fonts, so you have not violated the license.

Second issue: I can’t tell if you have violated the license, as there may be OFL references in the font that are not shown in the properties. It may be that the font viewer you are using did not properly read the file. It also thought that the file was not valid and may not have read the complete file.

I’m sorry but I cannot give you any more information as I do not have access to the exact font files. The fonts are also not from SIL so I cannot check them myself.

Hi VictorG,

Thanks for your reply.

About my first issue:

I stay in a Buddhist monastery in Myanmar.
I’m permitted to use some of the computers in the monastery and the computers of someone I know.

In some cases, I installed the OFL fonts directly into some computers that I’m permitted to access and use (sometimes to set up or fix), without leaving any copy of the fonts outside the system font folder in the computers, and without informing the owners or users of the computer.

Did this violate SIL OFL?

About my second issue:

I have more than one copy of that particular file, but there’s one which I found problematic.

I’ve compared the good one and the problematic one, the file size are the same, the good one can be opened, but the problematic file cannot be opened and installed, and does not have any information about Copyright, License description, Legal trademarks, Company and etc. in its properties except for “Type” field.

I just wonder, if I’ve given anyone the problematic font file giving the recipient an individual copyright notice and OFL text, was I considered violating the OFL?

I have another question.

As I know, Android uses Noto CJK fonts which are licensed to SIL OFL 1.1. If my license to use Noto CJK fonts is void, does it mean that I can’t use Android anymore because the system or apps will use the fonts when Chinese characters are displayed?

Thanks and may you be well and happy!

First issue: You did not violate the OFL.

Second issue: I can’t be sure, as I do not have access to your files. It sounds like you probably did not violate the license. You are OK.

Third question: Your license to use Noto CJK is not void. You don not need to worry.

Hi, VictorG,

Sorry, I found that there’s an important word missing in my second issue in my previous message. I’ve amended the sentence.

The following in my previous message:

I just wonder, if I’ve given anyone the problematic font file giving the recipient an individual copyright notice and OFL text, was I considered violating the OFL?

should be:

I just wonder, if I’ve given anyone the problematic font file WITHOUT giving the recipient(s) individual copyright notice and OFL full text, was I considered violating the OFL?

Could you please reply again regarding my second issue?

Thank you so much!

As I have said before, I can’t tell if you have violated the license, as there may be OFL references in the font that are not shown in the properties. It may be that the font viewer you are using did not properly read the file. It also thought that the file was not valid and may not have read the complete file. That problematic file is not your fault, and likely contains some reference to the OFL that you can’t easily see.

It is clear that you did not in any way intend to violate the license, and there is no clear proof that you have. Please don’t worry that you may have unintentionally violated the license. I don’t think you have.

Hi Victor,

Thank you so much for spending your precious time on helping me!

About my second issue:

I found that there are 5 invalid font files in the folder with similar issues. Besides these 5 files, there are some other font files in the folder that contain information on their properties but cannot be opened and installed.

But my concern is about these 5 invalid font files because there’s no information required by SIL OFL 1.1 in their properties.

I’ve prepared the 5 invalid font files and the 5 valid font files with the same name, and their copyright notice and license full text.

Here’s the link to download the zip file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10dKr_yb7eAOmz67RdNPHFUWzo_uVyIyQ/view?usp=drivesdk
(Please scan the file for virus before opening.)
Please let me know after you’ve downloaded it.

Besides, I downloaded and used Typograf, AMP Font Viewer, FontBase and Advanced Font Viewer in Windows 11. All four programs failed to load the 5 invalid font files.

Then, I tried to open the 5 invalid font files in Windows 7 by double-clicking the files in Windows Explorer (not using the four programs abovementioned), all 5 font files couldn’t be opened.

But I saw on the internet that:
1.) some people said that some font files are valid in certain versions of Windows but are invalid in certain versions of Windows, and
2.) some people said that they used online font converter to convert their invalid font files, and then some of the converted font files become valid.

Just that I don’t know when the invalid font files become valid, does the copyright notice, license information, and other information appear back in the properties of the font files or not. If the information is not there when the invalid font files become valid, does this mean that I could be in trouble?

I didn’t try to convert the 5 invalid font files because I don’t know if uploading to the online font converter is considered distribution or not, and I can’t provide any standalone copyright notice and license information.

—————————————————

Third issue:

I got the Source Han Sans and Source Han Serif fonts files that have been converted from OTF into TTF.
I couldn’t remember how I got them but I found a site that seems to have the same files.

  • the number of files is the same as those I have
  • the filename of the files are the same as those I have, and
  • the content in the README.txt file is the same as the one I have

Here’s the link: https://gitee.com/kero990/Source-Han-TrueType

In the properties of the TTF and TTC files, they seem to retain all the information in the original files.
(I don’t have the original OTF/OTC files that are same version as these TTF/TTC files, but I have some of the original OTF/OTC files that are lower and higher version than some of these TTF/TTC files.)

The words “Reserved Font Name ‘Source’” is still in the Copyright statement in the properties of the TTF/TTC files and ‘Source’ is still in the name of the TTF/TTC fonts.

According to the readme file of the TTF/TTC version of Source Han Sans and Source Han Serif fonts:
Specification

  • Language-specific version: TrueType collection (TTC)
  • Region-specific subset version: TrueType (TTF)
  • Units-per-em (UPM): 2048, i.e. lossless conversion from the OpenType/CFF source
  • Rendering strategy: full-range subpixel anti-aliasing (on Windows 10)
  • OpenType features: All included

I have given other people some or all of TTF/TTC version of Source Han Sans and/or Source Han Serif fonts or installed some or all of the TTF/TTC fonts in other people’s devices that I have permission to use, without any standalone file containing the text of the copyright notice and the full text of the license along with the font software. However, the copyright notice and a link to the SIL OFL 1.1 are in the font properties (when I checked with Typograf).

My concern is actually about the Reserved Font Name (RFN).
I don’t know if I have violated the term about the RFN in OFL because RFN of the original font software seems to be used in the TTF/TTC files but I didn’t get permission from the original copyright holder (Adobe) before sharing the files with other people.

Could you please help to check for me?

Thanks, and may you be well and happy!

Hello again -

Second issue: I am sorry but I am unable to take the time to investigate the individual files for you, and I do not know what information would be in converted files. You would need to check the converted files to look for an OFL reference. I would suggest you do not worry about this too much - just be sure that in the future you are careful to include the OFL with fonts you give to others.

Third issue: I am unable to check your files for you. Normally, if fonts contain an RFN, then modified versions of those fonts cannot be distributed using that RFN without permission. in some cases, as in some webfonts conversions, it is reasonable to interpret that the fonts are functionally equivalent and that the author would not object to the RFN being used. However I think that conversion from OTF to TTC is not likely to be functionally equivalent, and those fonts may be in violation of the RFN clause of the OFL. This is not your fault - any violation of the OFL was done by the person who you got the fonts from, not you. But now that you know that those fonts may be in violation you should probably not give them away any more.

For more information on these issues see our article on Web Fonts and Reserved Font Names.

BTW I am neither a judge nor a lawyer, so I cannot with legal certainty tell you if you have violated the OFL or not. I can help you understand the OFL, but you will need to decide for yourself whether what you have done violated the OFL. If you have, my suggestion is that you be more careful in the future.

Hi, Victor,

Thank you very much for your help!
I’ve learnt a lot.
I’ll surely be more careful in the future.

Thanks again and may you be well and happy!