Liam R E Quin wrote:
On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 11:30 -0300, minombresbond wrote:
+1 "libre fonts"
+1 for 'libre fonts' too. 'Open' brings me the memory of the free
software/open source ideological schism (maybe it's also because that's
how i always saw the terms). O
'Free' does have the 'as in beer'/'as in speech' ambiguity, as well as
'free font websites' being the term generally used by professional
typographers to decry the quality of no-cost fonts on the web...
...and the 'free' term might also get some spyware detectors crazy,
according to http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/090529-073506 ;p
Maybe the thing to do is to focus on the difference...
You can redistribute "libre" fonts (usually only under
a compatible licence); you can use them on the Web; you
can print with them; you can change them; you can redistribute
changed versions; anyone can get the source for your changes.
So, one could say "usable fonts", perhaps.
this would be a really interesting take in the debacle, as in
proprietary fonts being 'unusable'. I love this idea!
