Dave Crossland wrote:
2008/7/23 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
These are the same people that released the report trashing free fonts
They were shit-talking proprietary software redistributable at zero
price - freeware - and all the problems they identify would be
solvable if those
2008/7/24 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Dave Crossland wrote:
They say that EOT will be a W3C specification.
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/
Microsoft can submit whatever they want to the W3C, that doesn't mean
it WILL become a specification.
Adobe are supporting this as well -
2008/7/24 Nicu Buculei [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicu Buculei wrote:
Somebody pointed me in an IRC channel about this font not being free.
And I received the following answer:
Thanks for doing this Nicu!
Thank you for your email. I might release them as OFL in the future,
but for now I would
I see some fonts in the Open Font Library are licensed under GPL
- yet in the Submit Font form the only two options available are OFL and
PD.
Is there any reason why an option for GPL + Font Exception or even for
GPL is not included? - Particularly as the site already contains GPL'd
fonts.
-
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 07:03, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Dave Crossland wrote:
2008/7/24 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there any reason why an option for GPL + Font Exception or even for
GPL is not included?
Lack of developer time.
I'd say it's also a question of agreeing on
2008/7/24 George Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd vote against unclear PD,
Um... given that there are already a bunch of fonts released under PD
isn't it a bit late to remove it?
I guess we'll just have to have an American resubmit those fonts with
a globally-valid no-terms license ;-)
--
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 00:35 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
[...]
Bitstream hold plenty of software patents on all this stuff, and they
aren't involved in the W3C, so anyone who wants to implement anything
like EOT is going to be screwed by them.
Bitstream (as I've mentioned to you before) is an
