Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 01:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: Creating a new > openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning any new ones > from appearing) Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place > for fonts dedicated to the Public Domain. Things dedicated to the > public domain are not copyleft. On the other hand, anyone can take a public domain resource (in the USA) and re-release it under the GPL, even if they are not the creator. That's where the first GNU "tar" program came from, for example -- by taking pdtar, without consulting the author. Here in Canada there's no such thing as public domain. Maybe it would be better if OFL made it clear which licence was in use for a given font, and let people search and filter by licence? 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
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
> I suppose the "Report possible License violation" feature could be > duplicated/extended to "Report possible malicious file" so a simple > machine filter like file extensions would have a social safety net. > >> The *nix "file" command reads the file >> headers and determines file type based on the pattern of bytes in the >> headers of files -- that is the most reliable way to do it. > > Well, in the supposed "upload zip, uncompress zip, if other files > added, compress all the files into a new zip" process, running the > "file" command on the files to check their type matches their file > extension at the "uncompress zip" and "files added" stages would be > great. > > Brendan, what do you think? :-) It sounds like you are describing user security. This is really a server security issue for me. Take a PHP file. What headers will it have? NONE! I have also looked at project that reads headers, and they primarily read audio file headers. Even, HTML files will have to be disabled if php support is enabled for html files (which it is not). With a PHP file being executed by the server, you may (depending on the way passwords were stored) be able to produce a dump of all the emails and stored passwords for them. Or say someone uploads a rpm file and then manages to execute it on the server? I am not a security expert, but do know basic security rules. Getting the file onto the server is the first big step in launching an attack. I have managed to "hack" several sites gaining access to privileged database information this way. Constructing a map of the database from error messages I purposefully evoked. All due to lack uploading rules. As per a blacklist, we would need to find a "tried and true" list as I doubt we would be able to come up with them all. And, it would constantly change with the evolution of technology (php3 .php4 .phtml .php + more) for php. Then there is Cold Fusion, ASP, Server Side Includes, Server-side JavaScript etc. This is just part of the web based technologies that can cause an excitation on the server. Although I am not familiar with many of them, many may have more than one extension. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Fontfreedom wrote: > Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to the > Public Domain. I really don't know what made you jump at this conslusion. When I was pinging rejon three years ago about creating a OCAL like website for fonts, I didn't have PD in mind, neither had rejon from what I remember. This was all about fonts with source code/projects, freely distributable and modifiable. When I hear discussions, whether PD or OFL or GPL3 or whatever else is free enough and how exactly this "enough" should be defined, my head starts hurting and my antifreaks system goes to red alert mode. IMO, OFLB is a place for fonts which anyone can download, use for any purpose, modify or even sell (keeping in mind what SIL OFL 1.1 says about it). It shouldn't be a place for just free fonts, because it simply doesn't make sense competing with *most everybody else* around. Could we please be happy with PD, OFL and GPL and any other OSI approved license? Alexandre ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
[...] I understand the majority (but not all) of the people involved with this project are pro-copyleft, but I really want to have a non-copyleft openfontlibrary. >> Mmm, sounds like if you want only fonts that can become proprietary >> again, and not a fuller spectrum (you mention banning copyleft fonts >> above) then IMHO a side project is probably best. >> FF > > I strongly hope we can all work together on this. Please don't start a > side project on this. Simply we have the tools and capability to tag > fonts with pd or oflb or any other font license. Ideally, we work > together and have a grand ole time. > > Jon I really didn't mean to sound harsh or divisive with my reply. Sorry if it came out like that. Let's work together and discuss what can be done to satisfy the various goals. (OTOH, it may well be quite hard to reconcile differing views - possibly mutually incompatible ones - under the very same project umbrella). I'd like to know what Alexandre Prokoudine and Ben Laenen think about these issues for example. Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: > Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning any > new ones from appearing) Each of us have our preferred way of licensing fonts. I personally think the GPL is the best font license; many think the OFL is best; you think PD is best. Since all of these licenses are free software licenses, and we all think software freedom is important, we have a consensus that we should focus on, and not work to exclude other members of our community. Copyleft fonts are free software fonts. I'm more than happy to discuss the pros and cons of copyleft itself and how it relates to fonts, but I see that as a totally theoretical discussion. In terms of action, consensus and inclusiveness is very valuable. > Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to the > Public Domain. Jon Philips set up the site as a direct copy of the Open Clip Art library; that is, the codebase and much of the text on the site was directly copied from OCAL and slightly changed - replacing "clip art" with "font" was basically it :-) That license choice and the text promoting PD fonts was not a well thought out policy that came out of community discussion and consensus; it was Jon throwing getting the site online ASAP. Since then there has been a consensus that the site should recommend the SIL Open Font License, and accept any free software font. > I'm mostly afraid openfontlibrary is moving in the direction of becoming the > (however small) sourceforge of fonts. That is the basic idea of the site - although I wouldn't put it like that because SourceForge is a proprietary web service with lots of adverts for proprietary software, so I avoid mentioning it generally :-) > (Sourceforge is a popular open source > software website featuring mostly copyleft software.) Sourceforge doesn't promote copyleft licensing, AFAIK - it features mostly copyleft software because copyleft licenses are significantly more popular that non-copyleft licenses. > Remember, I own the openfontlibrary.com and .net domains, the non-copyleft > version of openfontlibrary could go there. I started talking privately with > (rejon) about this idea last year, but that never really went anywhere. > > I understand the majority (but not all) of the people involved with this > project are pro-copyleft, but I really want to have a non-copyleft > openfontlibrary. I am very grateful to you for registering those domain names, and pointing them to the .org site, and I would be very sad to see them pointed to a different site. I'd even be willing to purchase them from you, if you feel you no longer want to support the OFLB. However, I think the new OFLB site should have a few prominent pages that list "All PD fonts" "All OFL fonts" "All GPL fonts". Would that be an acceptable compromise for you? :-) ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
2008/11/2 Ed Trager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > One can always change a file name extension to something else, so > testing against the file extension is probably not useful. I suppose the "Report possible License violation" feature could be duplicated/extended to "Report possible malicious file" so a simple machine filter like file extensions would have a social safety net. > The *nix "file" command reads the file > headers and determines file type based on the pattern of bytes in the > headers of files -- that is the most reliable way to do it. Well, in the supposed "upload zip, uncompress zip, if other files added, compress all the files into a new zip" process, running the "file" command on the files to check their type matches their file extension at the "uncompress zip" and "files added" stages would be great. Brendan, what do you think? :-) ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 17:14 +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: > Christopher Fynn wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: > > > >> Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning > >> any new ones from appearing) > > > >> Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to > >> the Public Domain. > > IIRC various early contributors also expressed their willingness to > review fonts under PD and get them re-released under something they find > more adapted to the goals of the library. > > >> Things dedicated to the public domain are not > >> copyleft. Copycenter licenses such as the BSD license, the MIT license, > >> etc would also not be copyleft. > > Well, we can debate at length about where in the licensing spectrum we > want to be... There are differing views and it's OK. > > Personally I agree that non-copyleft Free Software licenses like BSD, > ISC and MIT/X11/Expat have a key role to play (they do already > thankfully!) but I notice how bigger and more inclusive communities form > around copyleft models because of the implicit trust and the lower > possibilities of getting contributions locked away from the Commons. The > Golden Rule, tit-for-tat, call it however you want... That's one of the > reasons why my preference goes to copyleft for fonts and font sources. > And more precisely "weak copyleft" for the OFL. If you branch you > inherit the licensing of where you branched from. Providing source is > recommended but not required. > > I'm interested in what others in the OFLB think on this subject. > > > Perhaps most people read "Open" to imply "Open Source" or FOSS. > > I associate "open" (as in the Open Font License) to the wide FLOSS > Free/Libre and Open Source Sofware spectrum of communities: "open fonts" > is designed to refer to unrestricted libre free software fonts. The > "open" in Open Font License isn't linked to the "open source" brand. > > > I'm wondering how many generally useful fonts are truly "Public Domain"? > > If you remove OFL and GPL'd fonts and similar from the Open Font Library > > how many Public Domain fonts are left? > > A key issue to consider IMHO. > > Public domain is still very hairy is certain jurisdiction and causes > problems as a global license. > > I'd say that a big portion of the fonts under PD have unclear background > and sometimes dubious origin (taken from restricted fonts sometimes). > One example was some blocks from MPH 2B Damase: see the thread on this > list on Feb 2007 and Victor Gaultney's recommendations. There are > obviously exceptions and legit PD fonts but my understanding from > various designers is that this is the general feeling. If you are the > author and stand behind a design, attach your name to it to create > trust. If you don't care about the other rights/freedoms, use a license > with attribution instead of PD. Honour the existing copyright > mechanisms. Provide a history of the project (FONTLOG-like). > > OTOH using a Creative Commons combination for fonts themselves is > discouraged by CC itself as these licenses are designed for content > whereas fonts are software. Granted it's a special kind of software but > it *is* software. > > >> I'm mostly afraid openfontlibrary is moving in the direction of becoming > >> the (however small) sourceforge of fonts. (Sourceforge is a popular open > >> source software website featuring mostly copyleft software.) > >> > >> If anyone would suggest the best way to make this happen, I'm all ears... > >> > >> Remember, I own the openfontlibrary.com and .net domains, the > >> non-copyleft version of openfontlibrary could go there. I started > >> talking privately with (rejon) about this idea last year, but that never > >> really went anywhere. > > > > Having one under openfontlibrary.org and another under > > openfontlibrary.net or openfontlibrary.com sounds like a recipe for > > confusion... > > Yes, agreed. Similar domain names pointing to sites with different > policies/content is rather confusing. IMHO we don't want to abuse the > trust of visitors/contributors. Wanting one and finding the other is > less than ideal. > > >> I understand the majority (but not all) of the people involved with this > >> project are pro-copyleft, but I really want to have a non-copyleft > >> openfontlibrary. > > Mmm, sounds like if you want only fonts that can become proprietary > again, and not a fuller spectrum (you mention banning copyleft fonts > above) then IMHO a side project is probably best. > > >> FF I strongly hope we can all work together on this. Please don't start a side project on this. Simply we have the tools and capability to tag fonts with pd or oflb or any other font license. Ideally, we work together and have a grand ole time. Jon > > ___ > Openfontlibrary mailing list > Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org > htt
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
Christopher Fynn wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: > >> Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning >> any new ones from appearing) > >> Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to >> the Public Domain. IIRC various early contributors also expressed their willingness to review fonts under PD and get them re-released under something they find more adapted to the goals of the library. >> Things dedicated to the public domain are not >> copyleft. Copycenter licenses such as the BSD license, the MIT license, >> etc would also not be copyleft. Well, we can debate at length about where in the licensing spectrum we want to be... There are differing views and it's OK. Personally I agree that non-copyleft Free Software licenses like BSD, ISC and MIT/X11/Expat have a key role to play (they do already thankfully!) but I notice how bigger and more inclusive communities form around copyleft models because of the implicit trust and the lower possibilities of getting contributions locked away from the Commons. The Golden Rule, tit-for-tat, call it however you want... That's one of the reasons why my preference goes to copyleft for fonts and font sources. And more precisely "weak copyleft" for the OFL. If you branch you inherit the licensing of where you branched from. Providing source is recommended but not required. I'm interested in what others in the OFLB think on this subject. > Perhaps most people read "Open" to imply "Open Source" or FOSS. I associate "open" (as in the Open Font License) to the wide FLOSS Free/Libre and Open Source Sofware spectrum of communities: "open fonts" is designed to refer to unrestricted libre free software fonts. The "open" in Open Font License isn't linked to the "open source" brand. > I'm wondering how many generally useful fonts are truly "Public Domain"? > If you remove OFL and GPL'd fonts and similar from the Open Font Library > how many Public Domain fonts are left? A key issue to consider IMHO. Public domain is still very hairy is certain jurisdiction and causes problems as a global license. I'd say that a big portion of the fonts under PD have unclear background and sometimes dubious origin (taken from restricted fonts sometimes). One example was some blocks from MPH 2B Damase: see the thread on this list on Feb 2007 and Victor Gaultney's recommendations. There are obviously exceptions and legit PD fonts but my understanding from various designers is that this is the general feeling. If you are the author and stand behind a design, attach your name to it to create trust. If you don't care about the other rights/freedoms, use a license with attribution instead of PD. Honour the existing copyright mechanisms. Provide a history of the project (FONTLOG-like). OTOH using a Creative Commons combination for fonts themselves is discouraged by CC itself as these licenses are designed for content whereas fonts are software. Granted it's a special kind of software but it *is* software. >> I'm mostly afraid openfontlibrary is moving in the direction of becoming >> the (however small) sourceforge of fonts. (Sourceforge is a popular open >> source software website featuring mostly copyleft software.) >> >> If anyone would suggest the best way to make this happen, I'm all ears... >> >> Remember, I own the openfontlibrary.com and .net domains, the >> non-copyleft version of openfontlibrary could go there. I started >> talking privately with (rejon) about this idea last year, but that never >> really went anywhere. > > Having one under openfontlibrary.org and another under > openfontlibrary.net or openfontlibrary.com sounds like a recipe for > confusion... Yes, agreed. Similar domain names pointing to sites with different policies/content is rather confusing. IMHO we don't want to abuse the trust of visitors/contributors. Wanting one and finding the other is less than ideal. >> I understand the majority (but not all) of the people involved with this >> project are pro-copyleft, but I really want to have a non-copyleft >> openfontlibrary. Mmm, sounds like if you want only fonts that can become proprietary again, and not a fuller spectrum (you mention banning copyleft fonts above) then IMHO a side project is probably best. >> FF -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
One can always change a file name extension to something else, so testing against the file extension is probably not useful. PHP's $_FILES['userfile']['type'] will indicate the file's mime type if provided by the browser, but I don't know how browsers determine the mime type for uploaded files. The *nix "file" command reads the file headers and determines file type based on the pattern of bytes in the headers of files -- that is the most reliable way to do it. But again, I don't know if browsers use a similar method or not. - Ed > I think a exclude list is better than an include list - that is, we > should exclude files with .exe .php and so on, and include any files > not matching this ban-list. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
2008/11/2 Brendan Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> (c) when any individual files are added to the typeface, create a new >> zip that includes everything > > For what reason? Downloading? Is this essential or ideal? Here is the use-case scenario that this is for: "Mary, soccer mom and scrap book hobbyist, is searching the web for "free fonts". She finds OFLB and wants to browse all the fonts in the library at once, and quickly download all the files for the dozen typeface families she thinks are cute. She sees something about how these fonts are free as in no price, but also free as in she can change them, and she bookmarks the site to learn more about all that later." More simply: A user goes to a font's page, and wants to download all the files associated with that font - font files, font sources, license, FONTLOG, everything. A ZIP file with everything, available with a single click, is ideal for this. > . Now. It looks as though people can fill out "tags" and also a > "description". We will not be able to do this while decompressing. The > Name will have to take the form of the file name. The name is the human name for the overall collection of files, and is not directly related to those files. The tags and description are like that too. The upload form has a user fill these things in when they say the location of the first file on the disk to be uploaded, and when they click upload then the decompression would happen. > I guess the easiest way to work this is to make them "hidden" by > default. Navigating to the hidden files is confusing though. A > consistent language on the file submission, (instead of "publish now" > one could use "hide this file". One could also rename the tab in the > user page from "hidden" to "unpublished" or something like that. > Additionally after a compressed file has been uploaded, a link on the > confirmation page could be provided to the "hidden" page. Sorry, I don't understand this, please re-explain it :-) Perhaps explain it from the point of view of a user, as the steps they take. > Now to the issue of allowed file types. The most secure thing to do > would only to allow certain file types. Files such as php files should > not be allowed. Nor should any other executable file. The > decompression will need to check for the file types and than filter > out the ones we do not want. Yes. > Have we come to some kind of decision on how the file types is gong to > work? How are we gong to solve the problem of all the source files? > Should we just input them all or what? I think a exclude list is better than an include list - that is, we should exclude files with .exe .php and so on, and include any files not matching this ban-list. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] @font face & ccHost
2008/11/1 Brendan Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Firefox does not render the @font face on my box. (OS X) Its only in the "minefield" development version. > Looks like the momentum is in our favour. Yes, I think so :-) > Now, back to the ccHost. If someone is willing to coach me through > what would be an ideal upload solution with compression please let me > know. I had several suggestions made in my mind. The reason why I am > asking is I may be able to code it, before I code it everything needs > to be crystal clear to me though. The documentation for cchost v5 isn't yet complete, but the main full time develop Victor Stone is working on it during this month. Look at the wiki at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CcHost - especially http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Cchost/customize and join the mailing list at https://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/cctools-cchost If you look at the archives at http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=cctools-cchost especially the dialog between Victor and Ben Weiner in October 2008, that will help too. For example, this post outlines what the developer documentation will be like: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=76b43c34081036k11b9ba84j9b4e0cd5c0208a0c%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=cctools-cchost And Ben has just spent all of October looking into ccHost v5 and creating the OFLBv2 site, so he might also be able to give you a better idea. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] The Next Version of OFLB
2008/11/2 Ed Trager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Default tags for upload pages- do we want more than: african, arabic, asian, >> cyrillic, fantasy, latin, monospace, sans_serif, script, serif, symbol > > Yes. > > I'm not sure what "default tags for upload pages" actually means, It means, there is a administratively declared set of "recommended tags" on http://openfontlibrary.fontly.org/submit/typeface which we ought to discuss here, and a machine generated set of "popular" tags. > but I think the list of categories is not yet completely thought-out ... No, indeed. Ben just put a quick list there, and the list needs to discuss what should be there. > One question I have is will it be possible to have multiple tags on > one font, say if I want to upload an "African" "sans-serif" font? Sure! :-) > For the geographic categories, I would have something much more along > the lines of what I have got on > http://eyegene.ophthy.med.umich.edu/NewUnifontDesign2/ Would you translate these into the following tags? Scientific, Scholarly, Artistic, Pan Unicode, The Americas, Africa, Europe, Europa, Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia > For the URL format, should it not be something more like the following > instead?: > http://openfontlibrary.org/people/benweiner/Puritan_Regular/2.0/Puritan_Regular-2.0.otf I added that to the wiki TODO page. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: > Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning > any new ones from appearing) > Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to > the Public Domain. Things dedicated to the public domain are not > copyleft. Copycenter licenses such as the BSD license, the MIT license, > etc would also not be copyleft. Perhaps most people read "Open" to imply "Open Source" or FOSS. I'm wondering how many generally useful fonts are truly "Public Domain"? If you remove OFL and GPL'd fonts and similar from the Open Font Library how many Public Domain fonts are left? > I'm mostly afraid openfontlibrary is moving in the direction of becoming > the (however small) sourceforge of fonts. (Sourceforge is a popular open > source software website featuring mostly copyleft software.) > > If anyone would suggest the best way to make this happen, I'm all ears... > > Remember, I own the openfontlibrary.com and .net domains, the > non-copyleft version of openfontlibrary could go there. I started > talking privately with (rejon) about this idea last year, but that never > really went anywhere. Having one under openfontlibrary.org and another under openfontlibrary.net or openfontlibrary.com sounds like a recipe for confusion... > I understand the majority (but not all) of the people involved with this > project are pro-copyleft, but I really want to have a non-copyleft > openfontlibrary. > > FF ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 01:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is: > > Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and > banning any new ones from appearing) > > Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated > to the Public Domain. Things dedicated to the public domain are not > copyleft. Copycenter licenses such as the BSD license, the MIT > license, etc would also not be copyleft. > > I'm mostly afraid openfontlibrary is moving in the direction of > becoming the (however small) sourceforge of fonts. (Sourceforge is a > popular open source software website featuring mostly copyleft > software.) > If anyone would suggest the best way to make this happen, I'm all > ears... > > Remember, I own the openfontlibrary.com and .net domains, the > non-copyleft version of openfontlibrary could go there. I started > talking privately with (rejon) about this idea last year, but that > never really went anywhere. Oh, I think that would not be a very good way to split traffic. I understand your points, but in the end I think better off to be more inclusive rather than more exclusive. Yes, originally I pushed very hard for PD only fonts like we have PD only content for openclipart.org My thinking on the subject might have changed now slightly in that I'm most interested in supporting the spectrum of usability. I personally would like to see openfontlibrary (OFLB) be the place for fonts on the free and open desktop. However, in the interest of the project, and contributors, I'm most willing to work together with interested parties to create something together by consensus and especially when I don't know something. The good thing about our setup is that we can support both PD and what the majority of font developers in the FLOSS world (or rather those that speak up / dig in ) suppport: PD and SIL OFL. > I understand the majority (but not all) of the people involved with > this project are pro-copyleft, but I really want to have a > non-copyleft openfontlibrary. > > FF Well, I personally lean more towards more complete freedom as in Public Domain or something more like CC attribution license, but in this project, we have decided to expand the licensing options for the preference of the community. Regardless, I strongly hope that we can work towards commons solution because we don't want to create site proliferation (aka, we have hard enough time keeping forward momentum on the current site, but which is happening now thanks to the efforts of Dave, Ben, George, etc). Cheers Jon > > > > __ > Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel > Deals! > ___ > Openfontlibrary mailing list > Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
