2009/7/30 Nicolas Spalinger <nicolas_spalin...@sil.org>: > Dave Crossland wrote: >> 2009/7/30 Robert Martinez <m...@mray.de>: >>> Apart from that only a MIT and a GPL version are required - right? >>> I can work on those icons this evening. >> >> Those 3 licenses are our 'recommended' or 'core' ones, and I think >> that if we host other licensed fonts (again, I forget where we are on >> that) they could just have a 'generic free' license icon. So if you >> can work on 3 icons (that I might keyword as GPL, BSD, FREE) that >> would be great :-) > > Why the mixup of license policy again? We really need to avoid confusing > contributors.
Are what people can upload, and what people can download, orthogonal? I'd like to OFLB to offer as many free fonts as exist. I'd like OFLB to promote publishing new fonts with one of the 3 recommended licenses. I think these aims are compatible. > We really need to use official logos of our licenses. Get in touch with > the authors of MIT for that one. The GPLv3 + FE logo needs to be > different from standard http://www.gnu.org/graphics/license-logos.html > for clarity. I think the logo ought to be close to the official ones, but the official ones may not be appropriate size/design for listings... > Seriously, what will "a generic free" keyword/icon blanket category > bring apart from confusion about what "free" means? Its just a minor icon, it won't signify much :-)
