On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 17:14 +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: > 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
I strongly hope we can all work together on this. Please don't start a side project on this. Simply we have the tools and capability to tag fonts with pd or oflb or any other font license. Ideally, we work together and have a grand ole time. 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