Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 18:01 +0800, Jon Phillips wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 04:32 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/2/2008 10:26:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Canada does indeed have a public domain. In fact, there are even Canadian public domain websites... http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071022-european-copyright-law-used-to-threaten-canadian-public-domain-site.html The term public domain there is used to mean copyright has expired, which is actually a slightly different thing than the US legal concept of public domain, as I understand it. In Canada you can waive your moral rights to be identified as the author of a work, and your moral right that the integrity of the work be preserved, and you can (separately) assign copyright to some other legal entity, all of which must be done in writing. So you can cone close, but C-64 does not, for example, anywhere that I can find contain the phrase public domain and does not recognise such as thing as a possible recipient for copyright assignment. At any rate, I'm not a copyright lawyer :-) I just consulted a little with some people when starting my Web site, http://www.fromoldbooks.org/ If you have an organisation to which people can assign their copyright, and a place to record the fact that they explicitly waived their moral rights, you can get pretty much the same effect I think. We just have to be careful to use terminology that is likely to be recognised by a Canadian court, and that was really my concern, I'm not trying to be argumentative :-) Of course, in the US, one could take a public domain font and re-release it under GPL... with no other changes. Liam [1] http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-42///en?page=1 -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
In a message dated 11/3/2008 12:33:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, FontFreedom, ... but I really want to have a non-copyleft openfontlibrary. Why? If we are not using copyleft licenses, what are you proposing to use in place? Copy - Center licenses, Such as: The CC-BY License _http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/_ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) The MIT/X11 License Zope Public License (ZPL) The whole reason for copyright law is to provide legal protections to authors of creative works, is it not? We now have enthusiastic communities of authors who recognize the value of giving back to the community, of sharing and remixing creative works. Licenses like SIL's OFL license for fonts have been designed specifically to help these authors protect their works so that they can do what they really want to do with them -- share them with the community! NO! SIL OFL does not allow them to share their fonts in a way which allows others to make modifications to a font, then re-release the font under the license of their own choosing. The right to share a work with others is just as much a legal right as the right to not share a work. The license makes this clear. And, BTW, the original author of a work is, at least under U.S. law as I understand it, free to release his or her work under as many or as few different licenses as s/he wants. So, for example, I could release an original font creation under OFL for the community to use, and still sell it under a commercial license for customers who may want some form of paid support or other service in return for payment. So licenses like the OFL provide clarity in terms of what authors want to allow or disallow. Clarity, yes. A good idea, no. Public Domain on the other hand seems to me very fuzzy and unclear. What legal rights are reserved or not reserved? It's not clear to me. What are the author's wishes? Heck, who even *is* the author of a Public Domain font? Maybe if we knew who the author or authors really are, we would find out that they don't want their fonts under Public Domain once they recognize the advantages and legal protections that copyright law is supposed to provide. I therefore personally think that Public Domain should be discouraged. I certainly would not put anything I created under Public Domain. I would much rather put it under a license that makes it very clear that I want to share my work with the community. CC-PD : Creative Commons - PD is a specific and unified way to dedicate works to the public domain. It's what's been used with many fonts currently in the openfontlibrary. Some people have said their (software, font, clipart, whatever) is public domain, then attached conditions which are totally incompatible with dedicating something to the public domain. Most public domain works do include documentation of who the author(s) are. We should write extensively explaining to people what it means to dedicate a font, or anything to the public domain. - Ed Trager **Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav0001) ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/4 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: designed specifically to help these authors protect their works so that they can do what they really want to do with them -- share them with the community! NO! SIL OFL does not allow them to share their fonts in a way which allows others to make modifications to a font, then re-release the font under the license of their own choosing. If the license they choose is restrictive, why is this a good thing? Doesn't that defeat the original author's intention to share? What is your name, FontFreedom? ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/4 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's what's been used with many fonts currently in the openfontlibrary. Some people have said their (software, font, clipart, whatever) is public domain, then attached conditions which are totally incompatible with dedicating something to the public domain. I would be very careful with that. Many people have uploaded fonts to OFLB and clicked public domain because the license they wanted wasn't available, and said in their description what the real license is. Do not trust the OFLB license labelling. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/4 Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Do not trust the OFLB license labelling. I've updated the site to warn people to check font files themselves, eg, http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/tarzeau/321 ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
I disagree. We make it clear what fonts should be under. And, if one submits their fonts and not under the terms allowed, we should delete the fonts and/or look to support the option if their is sufficient uptake for the license after review. The last thing we need is license proliferation, spreading more confusion to users of the site, and incompatibilities between uploaded fonts. The other option is to add a custom field for selecting your own, like what google code project does. We have to ask ourselves the question: take a stand on the licenses, or allow for as many fonts and their licensing quirks as possible, and possible problems. ASIDE: This is one of the reasons why on OCAL we did go only PD ;) I'm not arguing for it. So, we often debate this, but we should come to some general consensus about the goal(s) of the site: * allow as many fonts as possible and develop thriving font community, but with possible confusion * take a stand and allow for only the major 2-3 font license + PD options to serve as beacon of font freedom. Others are doing the great font site well already, but no one does these two options, and I would argue this project is best served as the font community for FLOSSD world. However, one could say that if that is true, we should allow for all fonts possible from FLOSSD and either allow for font licenses or push the font licenses determined as best suited to foster non-proliferation. Ok, this is becoming a new thread. ;) FontFreedom man, you can take credit at least for getting us to talk about these things :) Jon On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 09:24 +, Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/4 Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Do not trust the OFLB license labelling. I've updated the site to warn people to check font files themselves, eg, http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/tarzeau/321 ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
Hi, Chris, Releasing a font under GPL or OFL license simply ensures the font can freely be used or modified by anyone and that no one can claim proprietary or commercial rights. If somebody does want a similar font to sell under a commercial license I'm perfectly willing to develop one for them for a fair price. Regarding no one can claim proprietary or commercial rights, I believe that is actually not quite the case under U.S. copyright law, as I understand it. As the original font author, I believe that you yourself have the right to sell your own font under as many different licenses as you want, commercial as well as FLOSS. Dual Licensing appears to be becoming fairly common in the FLOSS software world. Commercial entities often ask for a commercial license from FLOSS vendors because their lawyers like that better, I guess. Maybe it is the liability thing -- a commercial entity does not want to be accused of stealing someone's software or font, open source or otherwise, so they want to negotiate payment for use. So you actually don't have to develop a separate font -- you can use the same one you have already developed and sell it if you have buyers. For something like Jomolhari, I'm sure there is a market. Best - Ed ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/3/2008 12:33:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, FontFreedom, ... but I really want to have a non-copyleft openfontlibrary. Why? If we are not using copyleft licenses, what are you proposing to use in place? Copy - Center licenses, Such as: The CC-BY License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This license requires attribution - and for any *reuse* or distribution, requires that the original license terms must be made clear to others. Does this mean if someone uses a font under this license to print a book (which could be considered a kind of reuse) that the original license terms must be printed or indicated in the book? Does there have to be an attribution? The MIT/X11 License As a font developer why should I particularly want to let anyone sublicense, and/or sell copies of a font they got freely from me? I'm happy to share or but I don't particularly want anyone sub licensing or distributing copies for profit. Zope Public License (ZPL) As a font developer why would I ever want to use a license which states This software consists of contributions made by Zope Corporation - I don't even know who they are and the Zope Corporation didn't contribute to any font software I made. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/4 Jon Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 09:24 +, Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/4 Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Do not trust the OFLB license labelling. I've updated the site to warn people to check font files themselves I disagree. We make it clear what fonts should be under. And, if one submits their fonts and not under the terms allowed, we should delete the fonts and/or look to support the option if their is sufficient uptake for the license after review. Okay, i've removd those changes, and looked at all the PD fonts on the site; only 3 had descriptions saying they were under a different license, and I've revmoed/updated them to OFL accordingly. Quick thought: I'd recommend we consider having an upload policy that encourages *authors themselves* to upload their own fonts and if others who are not authors post a font it should be clearly marked as such (on behalf of or something like that) and indicate who the upstream author is and provide a link to the upstream site when it exists. A tickbox I have checked that this font isn't violating any author rights or similar could be useful IMHO. Another policy item to separate ourselves from the gazillion freeware font sites... -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO! SIL OFL does not allow them to share their fonts in a way which allows others to make modifications to a font, then re-release the font under the license of their own choosing. As the developer of a font on OFLB (Jomolhari) I don't mind others modifying my font, and sharing that font with others. I certainly don't want anyone making minor modifications and then re-releasing the font under the license of their own choosing which could be a restrictive commercial license. That font took a year to create - time for which I was not paid in any way and during which I had to meet all of my own expenses out of my own pocket. It was my choice to spend a year doing this and also my choice to make the resulting font available for others to use without any charge and to be free to modify or convert the font to other formats. However I don't want to see any version of that font being sold for profit or falling under a commercial or proprietary license - or someone making minor modifications and copyrighting them. That would just be allowing someone else to cynically take financial advantage of all my hard work without doing much of anything themselves or it could mean that I couldn't make some improvement in my own font because someone might claim the improvement was already copyright. I'm would be foolish to donate land for a public park without ensuring that and noone could come along, erect a small fence and claim it as their own personal or commercial property. Releasing a font under GPL or OFL license simply ensures the font can freely be used or modified by anyone and that no one can claim proprietary or commercial rights. If somebody does want a similar font to sell under a commercial license I'm perfectly willing to develop one for them for a fair price. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/4 Jon Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 09:24 +, Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/4 Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Do not trust the OFLB license labelling. I've updated the site to warn people to check font files themselves I disagree. We make it clear what fonts should be under. And, if one submits their fonts and not under the terms allowed, we should delete the fonts and/or look to support the option if their is sufficient uptake for the license after review. Okay, i've removd those changes, and looked at all the PD fonts on the site; only 3 had descriptions saying they were under a different license, and I've revmoed/updated them to OFL accordingly. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
However I don't want to see any version of that font being sold for profit The OFL does allow selling fonts, both the original and a modified version (otherwise it would not be a free license). For instance, there are OFL'd fonts in the TeX Live distribution, and we (the TeX Users Group) make a DVD of it, and offer that DVD for sale. The restriction is that the font must not be sold *by itself*, so a webfonts4sale.com type of operation can't just drop an OFL'd font into their production line and start raking in the profits. Karl ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
In a message dated 11/4/2008 4:07:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However I don't want to see any version of that font being sold for profit or falling under a commercial or proprietary license - or someone making minor modifications and copyrighting them. That would just be allowing someone else to cynically take financial advantage of all my hard work without doing much of anything themselves or it could mean that I couldn't make some improvement in my own font because someone might claim the improvement was already copyright. I'm would be foolish to donate land for a public park without ensuring that and noone could come along, erect a small fence and claim it as their own personal or commercial property. Releasing a font under GPL or OFL license simply ensures the font can freely be used or modified by anyone and that no one can claim proprietary or commercial rights. If somebody does want a similar font to sell under a commercial license I'm perfectly willing to develop one for them for a fair price. My vision is more along the lines of: Someone takes a basic, high quality font with a copycenter license or public domain dedication. They use that as a base, making it into the banana font and Sarah's Swirly Sans Serif, then sells those as commercial fonts. If you look at the programming post, you will see how the best programmers know how to use snippets of other people's work to create their own. I also imagine someone may grab glyphs, etc. from several different open fonts, combine them into one, with their own style... The CC-BY License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This license requires attribution - and for any *reuse* or distribution, requires that the original license terms must be made clear to others. Does this mean if someone uses a font under this license to print a book (which could be considered a kind of reuse) that the original license terms must be printed or indicated in the book? Does there have to be an attribution? Rejon, you work for CC, can you explain this to us? CC Licenses are somewhat long, have some quirks, and mainly people get confused between CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-SA-ND, etc...I've seen too many webpages content which simply say you may reuse this (whatever it is I created) under a Creative Commons license, but then failing to say which one, which leaves people in the dark as to what the author is saying they can and cannot do with the content. The MIT/X11 License As a font developer why should I particularly want to let anyone sublicense, and/or sell copies of a font they got freely from me? I'm happy to share or but I don't particularly want anyone sub licensing or distributing copies for profit. This is probably the best example of what licenses for a good open reusable font library ought to be. Simple, understandable, you decide it's ok with you, or you decide it's not. Zope Public License (ZPL) As a font developer why would I ever want to use a license which states This software consists of contributions made by Zope Corporation - I don't even know who they are and the Zope Corporation didn't contribute to any font software I made. I never saw that in the Zope License ... Maybe you read a version I did not. Here is the Zope Public License (ZPL) 2.1: Zope Public License (ZPL) Version 2.1 A copyright notice accompanies this license document that identifies the copyright holders. This license has been certified as open source. It has also been designated as GPL compatible by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions in source code must retain the accompanying copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the accompanying copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Names of the copyright holders must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission from the copyright holders. The right to distribute this software or to use it for any purpose does not give you the right to use Servicemarks (sm) or Trademarks (tm) of the copyright holders. Use of them is covered by separate agreement with the copyright holders. If any files are modified, you must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Disclaimer THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 20:16 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/4/2008 4:07:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However I don't want to see any version of that font being sold for profit or falling under a commercial or proprietary license - or someone making minor modifications and copyrighting them. That would just be allowing someone else to cynically take financial advantage of all my hard work without doing much of anything themselves or it could mean that I couldn't make some improvement in my own font because someone might claim the improvement was already copyright. I'm would be foolish to donate land for a public park without ensuring that and noone could come along, erect a small fence and claim it as their own personal or commercial property. Releasing a font under GPL or OFL license simply ensures the font can freely be used or modified by anyone and that no one can claim proprietary or commercial rights. If somebody does want a similar font to sell under a commercial license I'm perfectly willing to develop one for them for a fair price. My vision is more along the lines of: Someone takes a basic, high quality font with a copycenter license or public domain dedication. They use that as a base, making it into the banana font and Sarah's Swirly Sans Serif, then sells those as commercial fonts. If you look at the programming post, you will see how the best programmers know how to use snippets of other people's work to create their own. I also imagine someone may grab glyphs, etc. from several different open fonts, combine them into one, with their own style... The CC-BY License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This license requires attribution - and for any *reuse* or distribution, requires that the original license terms must be made clear to others. Does this mean if someone uses a font under this license to print a book (which could be considered a kind of reuse) that the original license terms must be printed or indicated in the book? Does there have to be an attribution? Rejon, you work for CC, can you explain this to us? CC Licenses are somewhat long, have some quirks, and mainly people get confused between CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-SA-ND, etc...I've seen too many webpages content which simply say you may reuse this (whatever it is I created) under a Creative Commons license, but then failing to say which one, which leaves people in the dark as to what the author is saying they can and cannot do with the content. CC discourages use of cc licenses for fonts. I am not a fulltime employee of cc anymore and am only really work on a couple of projects more like freelance/contractor right now for cc. The CC website does a good job of explaining the differences between the licenses far better than I: http://creativecommons.org/about/license/ I would break cc licenses down as: Free (CC BY, CC BY-SA), non-free (the other 4). Then all current licenses require attribution (aka a linkback and/or credit to the author(s). Jon snip / -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
In a message dated 11/2/2008 10:26:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 01:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning any new ones from appearing) Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to the Public Domain. Things dedicated to the public domain are not copyleft. On the other hand, anyone can take a public domain resource (in the USA) and re-release it under the GPL, even if they are not the creator. That's where the first GNU tar program came from, for example -- by taking pdtar, without consulting the author. Here in Canada there's no such thing as public domain. Maybe it would be better if OFL made it clear which licence was in use for a given font, and let people search and filter by licence? Liam Canada does indeed have a public domain. In fact, there are even Canadian public domain websites... _http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071022-european-copyright-law-used-to- threaten-canadian-public-domain-site.html_ (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071022-european-copyright-law-used-to-threaten-canadian-public-domain-sit e.html) and let people search and filter by licence? That's a fine feature request...However, I still want there to be an open font site without any copyleft fonts, and which encourages people considering releasing their fonts to use alternatives to copyleft. **Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav0001) ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/2 Liam R E Quin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Maybe it would be better if OFL In order to defuse confusion between Open Font License and the Open Font Library, I've been promoting OFLB as the acronym for the latter. I hope you'll consider this :-) ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 11:24 +, Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: let people search and filter by licence? That's the essence of the compromise I have suggested. That's a fine feature request...However, I still want there to be an open font site without any copyleft fonts, and which encourages people considering releasing their fonts to use alternatives to copyleft. Please consider selling the openfontlibrary.com and .net domains to me andusing a different domain for this. When ccHost v5 documentation is released, you'll be able to set up a similar site fairly easily. I hope we can work together to federate your site and the OFLB, if your site becomes established. Yet again, I strongly hope we can all work together so there is no need to do any of these things...just keep on keeping on, and expose elements as suggested. Jon ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 04:32 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/2/2008 10:26:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 01:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning any new ones from appearing) Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to the Public Domain. Things dedicated to the public domain are not copyleft. On the other hand, anyone can take a public domain resource (in the USA) and re-release it under the GPL, even if they are not the creator. That's where the first GNU tar program came from, for example -- by taking pdtar, without consulting the author. Here in Canada there's no such thing as public domain. Maybe it would be better if OFL made it clear which licence was in use for a given font, and let people search and filter by licence? Liam Canada does indeed have a public domain. In fact, there are even Canadian public domain websites... http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071022-european-copyright-law-used-to-threaten-canadian-public-domain-site.html Yes, agree. There is absolutely a canadian public domain...see one of my projects from cc still working on: http://creativecommons.org/projects/pdwiki Also, in any country that doesn't have or has encumbered PD, CC has coming out: http://creativecommons.org/projects/cczero partially driven by pdwiki and other demands. and let people search and filter by licence? That's a fine feature request...However, I still want there to be an open font site without any copyleft fonts, and which encourages people considering releasing their fonts to use alternatives to copyleft. Yes, ccHost allows this. Jon __ Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/2 Alexandre Prokoudine [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Fontfreedom wrote: Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to the Public Domain. I really don't know what made you jump at this conslusion. When I was pinging rejon three years ago about creating a OCAL like website for fonts, I didn't have PD in mind, neither had rejon from what I remember. This was all about fonts with source code/projects, freely distributable and modifiable. To be fair, the site did say it was about PD fonts for a long time. The OFL code and all the text was copied from OCAL, which is why some people recall PD being a policy - it was inherited from OCAL initially, and has slowly been removed :-) Could we please be happy with PD, OFL and GPL and any other OSI approved license? The OSI approved some licenses the FSF considers non-free, although they are obscure, so it is better than use the FSF as an authority, or to be bipartisan, OSI boolean-AND FSF licenses as policy. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
Hi, FontFreedom, ... but I really want to have a non-copyleft openfontlibrary. Why? If we are not using copyleft licenses, what are you proposing to use in place? The whole reason for copyright law is to provide legal protections to authors of creative works, is it not? We now have enthusiastic communities of authors who recognize the value of giving back to the community, of sharing and remixing creative works. Licenses like SIL's OFL license for fonts have been designed specifically to help these authors protect their works so that they can do what they really want to do with them -- share them with the community! The right to share a work with others is just as much a legal right as the right to not share a work. The license makes this clear. And, BTW, the original author of a work is, at least under U.S. law as I understand it, free to release his or her work under as many or as few different licenses as s/he wants. So, for example, I could release an original font creation under OFL for the community to use, and still sell it under a commercial license for customers who may want some form of paid support or other service in return for payment. So licenses like the OFL provide clarity in terms of what authors want to allow or disallow. Public Domain on the other hand seems to me very fuzzy and unclear. What legal rights are reserved or not reserved? It's not clear to me. What are the author's wishes? Heck, who even *is* the author of a Public Domain font? Maybe if we knew who the author or authors really are, we would find out that they don't want their fonts under Public Domain once they recognize the advantages and legal protections that copyright law is supposed to provide. I therefore personally think that Public Domain should be discouraged. I certainly would not put anything I created under Public Domain. I would much rather put it under a license that makes it very clear that I want to share my work with the community. - Ed Trager ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Ed Trager wrote: The whole reason for copyright law is to provide legal protections to authors of creative works, is it not? It is not. Sure, it's what copyright laws usually pretend to be, but never actually care to become. Alexandre ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 01:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning any new ones from appearing) Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to the Public Domain. Things dedicated to the public domain are not copyleft. Copycenter licenses such as the BSD license, the MIT license, etc would also not be copyleft. I'm mostly afraid openfontlibrary is moving in the direction of becoming the (however small) sourceforge of fonts. (Sourceforge is a popular open source software website featuring mostly copyleft software.) If anyone would suggest the best way to make this happen, I'm all ears... Remember, I own the openfontlibrary.com and .net domains, the non-copyleft version of openfontlibrary could go there. I started talking privately with (rejon) about this idea last year, but that never really went anywhere. Oh, I think that would not be a very good way to split traffic. I understand your points, but in the end I think better off to be more inclusive rather than more exclusive. Yes, originally I pushed very hard for PD only fonts like we have PD only content for openclipart.org My thinking on the subject might have changed now slightly in that I'm most interested in supporting the spectrum of usability. I personally would like to see openfontlibrary (OFLB) be the place for fonts on the free and open desktop. However, in the interest of the project, and contributors, I'm most willing to work together with interested parties to create something together by consensus and especially when I don't know something. The good thing about our setup is that we can support both PD and what the majority of font developers in the FLOSS world (or rather those that speak up / dig in ) suppport: PD and SIL OFL. I understand the majority (but not all) of the people involved with this project are pro-copyleft, but I really want to have a non-copyleft openfontlibrary. FF Well, I personally lean more towards more complete freedom as in Public Domain or something more like CC attribution license, but in this project, we have decided to expand the licensing options for the preference of the community. Regardless, I strongly hope that we can work towards commons solution because we don't want to create site proliferation (aka, we have hard enough time keeping forward momentum on the current site, but which is happening now thanks to the efforts of Dave, Ben, George, etc). Cheers Jon __ Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
Christopher Fynn wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning any new ones from appearing) Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to the Public Domain. IIRC various early contributors also expressed their willingness to review fonts under PD and get them re-released under something they find more adapted to the goals of the library. Things dedicated to the public domain are not copyleft. Copycenter licenses such as the BSD license, the MIT license, etc would also not be copyleft. Well, we can debate at length about where in the licensing spectrum we want to be... There are differing views and it's OK. Personally I agree that non-copyleft Free Software licenses like BSD, ISC and MIT/X11/Expat have a key role to play (they do already thankfully!) but I notice how bigger and more inclusive communities form around copyleft models because of the implicit trust and the lower possibilities of getting contributions locked away from the Commons. The Golden Rule, tit-for-tat, call it however you want... That's one of the reasons why my preference goes to copyleft for fonts and font sources. And more precisely weak copyleft for the OFL. If you branch you inherit the licensing of where you branched from. Providing source is recommended but not required. I'm interested in what others in the OFLB think on this subject. Perhaps most people read Open to imply Open Source or FOSS. I associate open (as in the Open Font License) to the wide FLOSS Free/Libre and Open Source Sofware spectrum of communities: open fonts is designed to refer to unrestricted libre free software fonts. The open in Open Font License isn't linked to the open source brand. I'm wondering how many generally useful fonts are truly Public Domain? If you remove OFL and GPL'd fonts and similar from the Open Font Library how many Public Domain fonts are left? A key issue to consider IMHO. Public domain is still very hairy is certain jurisdiction and causes problems as a global license. I'd say that a big portion of the fonts under PD have unclear background and sometimes dubious origin (taken from restricted fonts sometimes). One example was some blocks from MPH 2B Damase: see the thread on this list on Feb 2007 and Victor Gaultney's recommendations. There are obviously exceptions and legit PD fonts but my understanding from various designers is that this is the general feeling. If you are the author and stand behind a design, attach your name to it to create trust. If you don't care about the other rights/freedoms, use a license with attribution instead of PD. Honour the existing copyright mechanisms. Provide a history of the project (FONTLOG-like). OTOH using a Creative Commons combination for fonts themselves is discouraged by CC itself as these licenses are designed for content whereas fonts are software. Granted it's a special kind of software but it *is* software. I'm mostly afraid openfontlibrary is moving in the direction of becoming the (however small) sourceforge of fonts. (Sourceforge is a popular open source software website featuring mostly copyleft software.) If anyone would suggest the best way to make this happen, I'm all ears... Remember, I own the openfontlibrary.com and .net domains, the non-copyleft version of openfontlibrary could go there. I started talking privately with (rejon) about this idea last year, but that never really went anywhere. Having one under openfontlibrary.org and another under openfontlibrary.net or openfontlibrary.com sounds like a recipe for confusion... Yes, agreed. Similar domain names pointing to sites with different policies/content is rather confusing. IMHO we don't want to abuse the trust of visitors/contributors. Wanting one and finding the other is less than ideal. I understand the majority (but not all) of the people involved with this project are pro-copyleft, but I really want to have a non-copyleft openfontlibrary. Mmm, sounds like if you want only fonts that can become proprietary again, and not a fuller spectrum (you mention banning copyleft fonts above) then IMHO a side project is probably best. FF -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning any new ones from appearing) Each of us have our preferred way of licensing fonts. I personally think the GPL is the best font license; many think the OFL is best; you think PD is best. Since all of these licenses are free software licenses, and we all think software freedom is important, we have a consensus that we should focus on, and not work to exclude other members of our community. Copyleft fonts are free software fonts. I'm more than happy to discuss the pros and cons of copyleft itself and how it relates to fonts, but I see that as a totally theoretical discussion. In terms of action, consensus and inclusiveness is very valuable. Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to the Public Domain. Jon Philips set up the site as a direct copy of the Open Clip Art library; that is, the codebase and much of the text on the site was directly copied from OCAL and slightly changed - replacing clip art with font was basically it :-) That license choice and the text promoting PD fonts was not a well thought out policy that came out of community discussion and consensus; it was Jon throwing getting the site online ASAP. Since then there has been a consensus that the site should recommend the SIL Open Font License, and accept any free software font. I'm mostly afraid openfontlibrary is moving in the direction of becoming the (however small) sourceforge of fonts. That is the basic idea of the site - although I wouldn't put it like that because SourceForge is a proprietary web service with lots of adverts for proprietary software, so I avoid mentioning it generally :-) (Sourceforge is a popular open source software website featuring mostly copyleft software.) Sourceforge doesn't promote copyleft licensing, AFAIK - it features mostly copyleft software because copyleft licenses are significantly more popular that non-copyleft licenses. Remember, I own the openfontlibrary.com and .net domains, the non-copyleft version of openfontlibrary could go there. I started talking privately with (rejon) about this idea last year, but that never really went anywhere. I understand the majority (but not all) of the people involved with this project are pro-copyleft, but I really want to have a non-copyleft openfontlibrary. I am very grateful to you for registering those domain names, and pointing them to the .org site, and I would be very sad to see them pointed to a different site. I'd even be willing to purchase them from you, if you feel you no longer want to support the OFLB. However, I think the new OFLB site should have a few prominent pages that list All PD fonts All OFL fonts All GPL fonts. Would that be an acceptable compromise for you? :-) ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Fontfreedom wrote: Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to the Public Domain. I really don't know what made you jump at this conslusion. When I was pinging rejon three years ago about creating a OCAL like website for fonts, I didn't have PD in mind, neither had rejon from what I remember. This was all about fonts with source code/projects, freely distributable and modifiable. When I hear discussions, whether PD or OFL or GPL3 or whatever else is free enough and how exactly this enough should be defined, my head starts hurting and my antifreaks system goes to red alert mode. IMO, OFLB is a place for fonts which anyone can download, use for any purpose, modify or even sell (keeping in mind what SIL OFL 1.1 says about it). It shouldn't be a place for just free fonts, because it simply doesn't make sense competing with *most everybody else* around. Could we please be happy with PD, OFL and GPL and any other OSI approved license? Alexandre ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 01:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning any new ones from appearing) Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to the Public Domain. Things dedicated to the public domain are not copyleft. On the other hand, anyone can take a public domain resource (in the USA) and re-release it under the GPL, even if they are not the creator. That's where the first GNU tar program came from, for example -- by taking pdtar, without consulting the author. Here in Canada there's no such thing as public domain. Maybe it would be better if OFL made it clear which licence was in use for a given font, and let people search and filter by licence? Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
