From: Gustavo Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 02/01/2008, at 07:53, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: > > And notice how font sources (FontLab) and the build script are also > > released. A very good sign :) > > yes, it is important to note that designers don't need to work > exclusively with free tools to collaborate with free software projects. > > the build script is not functional, since it uses functions from a > module which is not publicly available. nothing that prevents anyone > from working on the font using his own tools though.
I cannot make use of these font sources since I cannot, in good conscience, use FontLab. (To use any proprietary font development software means betraying everyone here by using software I cannot share with you, and also means giving up my freedom to understand and change the software on my computer and asking you to do the same to yourself. Both these aspects of proprietary software are social problems that the free software movement aims to solve.) When developing things collaboratively in a community, if that community is to be called "open," it is essential that the community does not exclude people using free software. Designers don't _need_ to work exclusively with free tools to collaborate with free software projects - although they _ought_ to - but they do _need_ to use unrestricted file formats. FontLab VFBs are _not_ free formats. There are two I know of, UFO and SFD. The XML schema "UFO" developed by the Robofab project could be a free format, suitable for FontForge-FontLab collaboration since both programs already read and write it, but I'm not sure it technically can encode all the information that is encoded in a VFB file. The 'Unix style text format' "SFD" developed by the George Williams as part of the FontForge project could be a suitable too, if a FontLab python script was developed that exported all the source information into that format, like the Robofab UFO exporter. While data-fully-inclusive and free source file formats that work with FontLab are being developed for tomorrow, the LGPL and GPL require that source code (including _full_ build scripts) be distributed with object code, today. So developers of fonts under those licenses who use FontLab are required to distribute the full VFBs and the complete set of build scripts that they used to develop the font. I have contacted Christian Robertson about this - I trust its a genuine mistake that the build scripts are incomplete :-) - by leaving a comment on the blog post URL that starts this thead: -- 8< -- > > ... be aware that you inherit the copyright and licensing of > > upstream: currently LGPL2 > > I assumed this was the assumption, but there seems to be some > confusion here. What do I need to do to make it explicit that this font > inherits the upstream license and trademark (even though it didn't > necessarily inherit any of the specific point data)? Are there files > that I should put into the zip? I'm a noob at open source > contributions :) I'm preparing a small essay about this issue; Gustavo has extended a GPL font published by another GNU/Linux distributor, Red Hat and their Liberation fonts, and ran into the very same questions about how to proceed within the terms of the license. The first thing to do is check that all the build scripts you used to make the OTF font are included in the zip file along with the VFB data :-) -- 8< -- When a suitable format arrives, we could in the future require source to be made available in that format and reject VFB files. Until then, given everyone is required to redistribute non-free-file-format sources with font object files (TTF/OTF) and given that the Open Font Library should accept such fonts, I suggest we (the OFLB) make a clear statement that using proprietary development tools is antisocial and distribute that statement with those fonts. This is obviously my personal opinion, and I think that all the people involved with the Open Font Library at this stage ought to decide things in a democratic way. So I think we ought to establish some kind of legal infrastructure to appoint a leadership committee and identify genuine OFLB members and count votes over these issues. Also, I'm aware of the Debian project having some good democratic tools to identify people and count votes, and processes for stating issues and voting on them. MJ Ray has a lot of experience about this, and he lives near me geographically so I hope to meet him face to face this month to discuss. Nicolas Spalinger is also active in the Debian font project although I don't know if he's a "Debian Developer" officially. hope they'll explain some more about that stuff here, for those unfamiliar. The Software Freedom Law Center's light weight "Conservancy" seems an excellent way to go about the legal side: "The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization composed of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects. As a fiscal sponsor for FOSS projects, the Conservancy provides member projects with free financial and administrative services, but does not involve itself with technological and artistic decisions. By joining the Conservancy, member FOSS projects obtain the benefits of a formal legal structure while keeping themselves focused on software development. These benefits include, most notably, protection from personal liability for project developers. Another benefit of joining the Conservancy is that projects can use it to hold assets, which are managed by the Conservancy on behalf of and at the direction of the project. The Conservancy is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, so member projects can receive tax-deductible donations to the extent allowed by law. To make a donation to the Conservancy or to its member projects, please visit our donations page. If you think your FOSS project might benefit from joining the Conservancy, please contact us." -- http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/ We would also get the ability to accept donations to the project, and the ability to seek legal advice from real lawyers about licensing issues such as this. Those 2 things in itself make joining the conservancy worthwhile IMO. On the other hand, we could appoint a benevolent dictator, like in the Linux Kernel and Python Language projects, which I guess at the moment is Jon Phillips ;-) I'm personally not keen on that, but if we the OFLB can't muster enough interest in democratic process, how else will we resolve such policy/political issues? -- Regards, Dave _______________________________________________ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
