(I posted it in GitHub, too)

This program has some fonts under SIL-OFL, but it cannot be used under GPL.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.en#SILOFL
According to the page, SIL-OFL is “incompatible with the GNU GPL”.

These are OFL Fonts.

*Donegal
*Gloria
*Mystery

Apache License 2.0 is ONLY compatible with GPLv3, but scratch-flash is GPLv2.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.en#apache2
That is Apache License Fonts.

*Marker

Helvetica is copyrighted.
So all the fonts except Scratch violate the license.

Discuss about the problem.

Hmm… That's a bit concerning.

SonicMasterSystem wrote:

Hmm… That's a bit concerning.

I doubt that it's that serious. Nobody would enforce a DMCA over a font. I'd just be pointless.

myeducate wrote:

SonicMasterSystem wrote:

Hmm… That's a bit concerning.

I doubt that it's that serious. Nobody would enforce a DMCA over a font. I'd just be pointless.

You never know, companies will always want to make money.

dude341 wrote:

myeducate wrote:

SonicMasterSystem wrote:

Hmm… That's a bit concerning.

I doubt that it's that serious. Nobody would enforce a DMCA over a font. I'd just be pointless.

You never know, companies will always want to make money.

Maybe they'd sue if it was a font used by a company that represented their brand, like Google's Product Sans

dude341 wrote:

myeducate wrote:

SonicMasterSystem wrote:

Hmm… That's a bit concerning.

I doubt that it's that serious. Nobody would enforce a DMCA over a font. I'd just be pointless.

You never know, companies will always want to make money.

How do they earn money by putting a DMCA claim?

World_Languages wrote:

dude341 wrote:

myeducate wrote:

SonicMasterSystem wrote:

Hmm… That's a bit concerning.

I doubt that it's that serious. Nobody would enforce a DMCA over a font. I'd just be pointless.

You never know, companies will always want to make money.

How do they earn money by putting a DMCA claim?

Protection of intellectual property? They wouldn't gain any money directly, but it's for the indirect losses as if the didn't use their rights, no one plus bother paying to use their property.

ST knows Helvetica is a toll font,right?

myeducate wrote:

SonicMasterSystem wrote:

Hmm… That's a bit concerning.

I doubt that it's that serious. Nobody would enforce a DMCA over a font. I'd just be pointless.

Well, I mean Namco did file a DMCA over a 10 year olds Pac-Man game…

Well, Scratch is non profit - so it's fair use.

myeducate wrote:

Well, Scratch is non profit - so it's fair use.

But some country, including my country, Japan's act doesn't have fair use clause.

Scratch is international,isn't it?

myeducate wrote:

Well, Scratch is non profit - so it's fair use.

Well, it's not like the owners of the fonts are gonna turn into Nintendo and DMCA everything, scouring the face of the website (and the internet) clean until there is no trace left?

…right?

apple502j wrote:

myeducate wrote:

Well, Scratch is non profit - so it's fair use.

But some country, including my country, Japan's act doesn't have fair use clause.

Scratch is international,isn't it?

Scratch is not international. It is located in the United States. If Scratch doesn't remove the font because of fair use, the font creator would have to go to the US to make a legal demand, and there is fair use in the US.

myeducate wrote:

Well, Scratch is non profit - so it's fair use.

Does fair use cover non-profit things? I don't think it does…

People think fonts are fair use, but I think we can't use fair use for ALL fonts.
ST doesn't have to use a lot of fonts by fair use. Are ALL fonts really necessary?

and there's no credit - If not needed but credit should be also put.

We don't even know what version or modification of Helvetica is.

myeducate wrote:

We don't even know what version or modification of Helvetica is.

maybe https://www.fonts.com/font/linotype/helvetica

According to Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, there are 4 factors that determine whether or not the use of a copyrighted work is considered a fair use:
① Purpose and character of the use
② Nature of the copyrighted work
③ Amount and substantiality
④ Effect upon work's value
Since you might not know what each of those means, let me put that into laymens' terms:

① Purpose and character of the use - Essentially, if the copyrighted material is being used commercially (to make profit) or for non-profit educational purposes. In this case, the font is being used for non-profit educational purposes (I hope).
② Nature of the copyrighted work - What the original copyrighted work was used for (i.e. a font).
③ Amount and substantiality - How much of the copyrighted material is being used. Since there are FIVE (5) potentially copyrighted fonts being used here, in basically original form, this could cause a lot of problems if the creators of the fonts are willing to persue legal action.
④ Effect upon work's value - Whether or not the use of copyrighted material will affect the original owner of the material negatively. This was what I was referring to when I was joking about Nintendo's DMCA practices (post #12).

I am not a lawyer, so please take what I have said with a grain of salt.
edit: I'm apparently bad at spelling

Scratch Font is also copyrighted? No way!
https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/topic/93226/

Don't forget that ST distributes all the fonts used in 2.0
https://github.com/LLK/scratch-render-fonts

FAIR USE?