Re: [Openfontlibrary] FontEmbedding.com
Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/7/23 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: These are the same people that released the report trashing free fonts They were shit-talking proprietary software redistributable at zero price - freeware - and all the problems they identify would be solvable if those fonts were not proprietary Agreed. They say that EOT will be a W3C specification. Microsoft's Embedded OpenType (.EOT) Font Format Submission Request to W3C: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/ Microsoft can submit whatever they want to the W3C, that doesn't mean it WILL become a specification. Adobe are supporting this as well - and from what I've heard it has fairly widespread support. Bitstream hold plenty of software patents on all this stuff, and they aren't involved in the W3C, so anyone who wants to implement anything like EOT is going to be screwed by them. The main Bitstream Patents related to this seems to be 5,577,177 Apparatus and methods for creating and using portable fonts which goes back to 1995 - I'm wondering how restrictive or enforceable this is? So far they don't seem to have taken any successful action to stop EOT Microsoft's WEFT which has already been around for ten years. Why woud that change now? Meanwhile Bitstream seem have stopped pushing their PFR for web font embedding (which anyway did not work complex scripts) - and seem to be concentrating on it's use in Digital Video and embedded devices. Bitstream's Own TrueDoc / PFR blurb http://www.bitstream.com/font_rendering/products/truedoc/faqs.html claims TrueDoc works differently from font embedding which sounds like they are trying to claim what they do is *different* from EOT etc. They also claim: When recording characters, the TrueDoc recorder does not access the original font directly. In addition, TrueDoc does not copy or use any hinting information from the original font. TrueDoc's internal, automatic hinting process handles all hinting to guarantee exceptional quality on all devices. - and seem to imply that this gets round the original font license. Of course Microsoft, Monotype, Adobe also have number of patents of their own related to font embedding . - chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] FontEmbedding.com
2008/7/24 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dave Crossland wrote: They say that EOT will be a W3C specification. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/ Microsoft can submit whatever they want to the W3C, that doesn't mean it WILL become a specification. Adobe are supporting this as well - and from what I've heard it has fairly widespread support. Depends who you ask, and what you mean by 'support.' Tom Phinney's informal poll asked mainly proprietary-minded type designers and web designers, and he dismissed the disproportionally small but vocal critics. And although Adobe and Microsoft are pushing this behind the scenes, there has been no favorable commentary on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. Web developers understand why DRM is a plague on all our houses, at least. And the comments in the blog at FontEmbedding.com is also full of unfavorable remarks. I'm wondering how restrictive or enforceable this is? IANAL, and I'm not in a country with this stuff. But I've heard Bitstream people voice an expectation for their pound of flesh. So far they don't seem to have taken any successful action to stop EOT Microsoft's WEFT which has already been around for ten years Microsoft and Bitstream almost certainly have a blanket patent cross licensing deal. The only other developer to use the ideas monopolised by their patents was Netscape, who also licensed the patent - and Bitstream's implementation too, in fact. Meanwhile Bitstream seem have stopped pushing their PFR for web font embedding (which anyway did not work complex scripts) - and seem to be concentrating on it's use in Digital Video and embedded devices. Since web-browsers are a core part of Digital Video and embedded devices, this is foreboding. seem to imply that this gets round the original font license. All that is historic IMO: The proprietary beasts are so archaic, when Bitstream was doing this 15 years ago they didn't want it done at all, and Bitstream had to work around them. Of course Microsoft, Monotype, Adobe also have number of patents of their own related to font embedding . These are covered by the W3C's patent release, which is friendly to free software. Cheers, Dave ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] [Fwd: the OPN Malatashito font and the Open Font Library]
2008/7/24 Nicu Buculei [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Nicu Buculei wrote: Somebody pointed me in an IRC channel about this font not being free. And I received the following answer: Thanks for doing this Nicu! Thank you for your email. I might release them as OFL in the future, but for now I would like to keep them free only for non-commercial use. So I guess they should be taken down then. But if my account still remains on the site, I would like to possibly release some of my other fonts as OFL in the near future. Great! :-) ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
[Openfontlibrary] GPL with Font Exception?
I see some fonts in the Open Font Library are licensed under GPL - yet in the Submit Font form the only two options available are OFL and PD. Is there any reason why an option for GPL + Font Exception or even for GPL is not included? - Particularly as the site already contains GPL'd fonts. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] GPL with Font Exception?
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 07:03, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/7/24 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is there any reason why an option for GPL + Font Exception or even for GPL is not included? Lack of developer time. I'd say it's also a question of agreeing on the policy. I'd vote against unclear PD, Um... given that there are already a bunch of fonts released under PD isn't it a bit late to remove it? Or did you mean something else and I'm misunderstanding? ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] GPL with Font Exception?
2008/7/24 George Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'd vote against unclear PD, Um... given that there are already a bunch of fonts released under PD isn't it a bit late to remove it? I guess we'll just have to have an American resubmit those fonts with a globally-valid no-terms license ;-) -- Regards, Dave ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] FontEmbedding.com
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 00:35 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: [...] Bitstream hold plenty of software patents on all this stuff, and they aren't involved in the W3C, so anyone who wants to implement anything like EOT is going to be screwed by them. Bitstream (as I've mentioned to you before) is an active W3C Member. Please don't spread unsubstantiated rumours. Thanks, Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
