On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 02:37, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi, > > Some of you may have wondered why I insist all the time on detached > licenses and other boring bureaucratic stuff. Here is what happens when > the font author dumps a raw font file with little context: > > (10:43:38) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: ping > (10:44:41) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: pong > (10:44:47) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: what's the usual recommended course of > action when "upstream" of a font only provides a ttf and an otf file? > ie., no license or tarball Surely the correct procedure in these case SHOULD be to look inside the font for the internal license?
This seems like a trivial thing, but it isn't even mentioned in this conversation. If the problem is that packagers don't know how to extract a license from a font, then I'll write such a program. So I get annoyed by this because these people are complaining about something they can easily solve (assuming the font has a license inside it, of course). To me having a license WITHIN the font is far cleaner, far better than having separate files. I strongly dislike the idea of separate files because I feel it is too easy for a license file to be misplaced, but a license within the font will only be removed by malicious users. _______________________________________________ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary