Hi,
Dave Crossland wrote:
Hi Open Font Library list, and Bolt Cutter Design!
<snipped>
Since this is a free software license, I think the Open Font Library
should be willing to accept these fonts afterall, as long as a little
more work is done to make them licensed ideally.
Ace. Bring 'em on.
That is, I would like to see a little more care taken over the
licensing so that it is clear that the fonts are licensed like this
(by saying so in the copyright string of the font, and including the
license text in the font, and in text files inside the ZIP archive).
I would also want to see the fonts follow the recommendation of the
FSF (the GPL's authors) and add the "font exception"
Is this a concrete recommendation of FSF?
However, there are other issues with the GPL for fonts. I've been
talking to Nicolas Spalinger offlist about the ideal way to apply the
GPL to fonts, so I think I'll go and bring all that discussion up to
date and on to this list, and ask the Bolt Cutter Design studio to
make their excellent range of fonts a 'case study' example in GPL best
practices
Excellent. Am I correct in thinking that would give us:
- OFL: feels like a regular font, but doesn't have embedding
restrictions (you can send it to a printer or distribute it as part of a
brand identity, ideally using the OFLB site URL for the typeface to save
email bloat).
- GPL: spreads freedom wherever it goes, requires documents made with
the font to be licensed in a similar manner (weird for many people, but
could have interesting and beneficial consequences - nobody's really
suggested any though, dare I say it)
- GPL plus font exception: spreads freedom, but without making a
designer or author who uses the font have to think about licenses.
From the point of view of typeface designers, all allow the remixing,
collaboration and refinement that are hallmarks of decent free and open
software.
Is that roughly right?
If so, it seems we have a dream team.
Cheers,
Ben
