2008/5/25 Pierre Marchand <capparis at free.fr>: > Vous (Dave Crossland) avez ?crit : >> 2008/5/24 Peter Nermander <peter at nermander.se>: >> > I wish fonts would be licensed the same way for example photographs >> >> But fonts are functional software, and photos are typically decorative >> artwork. > > a rather long discussion with the need of a lot of wine, etc.
lol - that is indeed what this is :-) > So, I don't think that glyphs should be licensed as photos because they are > not just artwork, I don't think either that they can be treated as plain > software, nor double licensed! So, I don't know exactly, I believe that since fonts are software, and since type designs are functional - a type design you can't read with is non-functional - then they ought to be free in the same way as program software is, and functional information like encyclopedias is too. The "glyphs are art" reasoning is at best a misunderstanding of design as art, and at worse a sneaky way for proprietary software developers to justify DRM. > just think that moral right (rough translation from FR) should be preserved. I agree, and the moral rights of authors do not conflict with the rights users of functional information ought to have :-) >> Fonts ought to be like Scribus: free as in freedom. > > Free fonts are panacea, but exception too :) That's gonna change :-) -- Regards, Dave
