Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses?
- we want to reduce licensing proliferation I completely agree. However, I don't see the vote as saying "we will blindly accept any random upload whose license is on license-list.html". Dave said "via moderation". I took that to mean the moderators will try to convince such an uploader using a random license to use one of the preferred ones. The question is, do we want to completely reject an upload which knowingly uses a different (known) free license? IMHO, no. On the other hand, in the name of license de-proliferation, I would favor rejecting any upload which uses a custom license *not* listed on license-list.html. - OFL Ack. - MIT/X11/Expat (much better than PD) As long as we're being dogmatic, I think we should recommend Expat and not mention MIT, X11, modified BSD, ISC, etc., etc. Expat is the only one of that family which has an unambiguous name and meaning. (Again, that does not actively rejecting a font using mBSD.) - GPLv3 + reworked font exception I see no problem with GPLv2+exception. And there is no "reworked font exception" to my knowledge, so I don't know what you're referring to there. karl
[OpenFontLibrary] wiki to spanish
I would like to contribute with the translation of some section of the ofl wiki to spanish, How can I do? sorry if the answer is already on the wiki! saludos!
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses?
> So, as policy, should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software > licenses? If you mean those licenses listed as free on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html, I (Karl Berry) vote yes. Question: Are all of these licenses OSI-recognized? I don't know. I doubt it. However, to the best of my knowledge none of the licenses listed by the FSF as free have been ruled non-free by OSI. karl
[OpenFontLibrary] Should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software license
I'm planning on encouraging people to release their fonts with the MIT/X11 license for openfontlibrary.com Or dedicated to the public domain if they prefer. Only those two. **Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=htt p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown0001)
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses?
Hi, Dave, On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems fonts developed in sourceforge like systems may not be able > to support font linking at all, or only from their own sites. > > So, as policy, should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses? Ed Trager: Yes. Question: Are all of these licenses OSI-recognized? Maybe we could have OSI-recognized license tags in one color and non-OSI-recognized tags in some other color or something like that? > > I'd like a "show of hands" - Please reply with your name and then > "yes" or "no" - we can then debate the "no"s :-) > > Dave Crossland: Yes > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2008/11/11 > Subject: Re: [DejaVu-fonts] Open Font Library wants to host your fonts > for @font-face web > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Tuesday 11 November 2008, Dave Crossland wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Last week, "Hendry" asked on IRC if the DejaVu TTF were on a central >> website so that they would be easily linkable via @font-face CSS. > > Nope, sourceforge doesn't allow direct linking of files (it can only go > through their file release system), so we need another location like > OFLB. > > btw, wasn't there a built-in restriction for font linking in the > browsers that support @font-face which limits font linking to the same > domain as the webpage? > > Ben > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2008/11/14 > Subject: Re: [DejaVu-fonts] Open Font Library wants to host your fonts > for @font-face web > To: Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 2008/11/11 Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> btw, wasn't there a built-in restriction for font linking in the >> browsers that support @font-face which limits font linking to the same >> domain as the webpage? > > Firefox has this, and sites must configure their HTTPDs if they want > to allow cross-site fonts. OFLB will do this as soon as FF implements > the feature (currently its turned on and can only be turned off by > users configuring FF to not do it always, but thats because its in > development) >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses?
> It seems fonts developed in sourceforge like systems may not be able > to support font linking at all, or only from their own sites. > > So, as policy, should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses? By Free Software licenses I assume you mean licenses positively rated in the FSF license list? In the fonts section only or not? http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ The trouble is that many licenses used by fonts out there have not been through community/FSF review. Also IMHO a light moderation system should be set up for all submissions. There were cases before where some submissions under supported licenses have been found to be under different licenses or from restricted fonts. We really want to be serious about this licensing audit and bar any accusation from anyone on being lax about respecting the rights of authors. We don't want to kill our reputation... > I'd like a "show of hands" - Please reply with your name and then > "yes" or "no" - we can then debate the "no"s :-) > > Dave Crossland: Yes Nicolas Spalinger: No Instead I highly recommend a limited set of licenses which work well with fonts and cover the various approaches: - OFL - MIT/X11/Expat (much better than PD) - GPLv3 + reworked font exception So here are my reasons which I discussed earlier (and which Jon also insisted on): - we want to reduce licensing proliferation and not encourage tons of organisation and project-specific licenses but have re-usable licenses to get patches to flow between branches and between projects. Licensing proliferation fragments our community. Common and well-defined licenses help sharing and reusability. - many free software licenses are not adapted to the needs of font design and font use, (they are great but they are not designed with fonts in mind) so why encourage problems for designers and end-users? Licenses not dealing with embedding are problematic for example. Licenses designed for content are not appropriate for fonts, etc. - the OFLB's differentiating feature is that we don't become another all-the-fonts-you-can-get website but that we're serious about clear and trustworthy licensing and we focus on quality fonts. Of course, for existing and very active font projects like Dejavu we should consider exceptions for hosting. /me ducks for the flamewar... -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses?
2008/11/14 Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It seems fonts developed in sourceforge like systems may not be able > to support font linking at all, or only from their own sites. > > So, as policy, should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses? > > I'd like a "show of hands" - Please reply with your name and then > "yes" or "no" - we can then debate the "no"s :-) > > Dave Crossland: Yes Denis Jacquerye: Yes -- Denis Moyogo Jacquerye --- http://home.sus.mcgill.ca/~moyogo African Network for Localisation http://www.africanlolisation.net/ Nkótá ya Kongó míbalé --- http://info-langues-congo.1sd.org/ DejaVu fonts --- http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/
[OpenFontLibrary] Should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses?
It seems fonts developed in sourceforge like systems may not be able to support font linking at all, or only from their own sites. So, as policy, should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses? I'd like a "show of hands" - Please reply with your name and then "yes" or "no" - we can then debate the "no"s :-) Dave Crossland: Yes -- Forwarded message -- From: Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2008/11/11 Subject: Re: [DejaVu-fonts] Open Font Library wants to host your fonts for @font-face web To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tuesday 11 November 2008, Dave Crossland wrote: > Hi! > > Last week, "Hendry" asked on IRC if the DejaVu TTF were on a central > website so that they would be easily linkable via @font-face CSS. Nope, sourceforge doesn't allow direct linking of files (it can only go through their file release system), so we need another location like OFLB. btw, wasn't there a built-in restriction for font linking in the browsers that support @font-face which limits font linking to the same domain as the webpage? Ben -- Forwarded message -- From: Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2008/11/14 Subject: Re: [DejaVu-fonts] Open Font Library wants to host your fonts for @font-face web To: Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008/11/11 Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > btw, wasn't there a built-in restriction for font linking in the > browsers that support @font-face which limits font linking to the same > domain as the webpage? Firefox has this, and sites must configure their HTTPDs if they want to allow cross-site fonts. OFLB will do this as soon as FF implements the feature (currently its turned on and can only be turned off by users configuring FF to not do it always, but thats because its in development)
