[OpenFontLibrary] Announcing Libre Graphics magazine issue 2.1
⤹⟷...⟺...⇄...sorry for cross-posting...⇄...⟺...⟷⤸ -> Announcing Libre Graphics magazine issue 2.1 <- This February, Libre Graphics magazine (http://libregraphicsmag.com/) has reached a major milestone. We have published and shipped issue 2.1, the first number in our second volume. Titled "Localization/Internationalisation," this issue explores the unique problems of non-latin type, the hyper-localisation of custom clothing patterns and international visual languages, among other topics. Launched at FOSDEM, this issue marks the beginning of our second volume of publication, and heralds our move towards an increasingly critical slant. Exploring not just how Free/Libre Open Source Software can be used to create high quality art and design, in volume 2, we see a growing emphasis on the cultural and social issues around F/LOSS and Free Culture. With 2.1, we discuss issues of regionality. We are currently seeking submissions (http://libregraphicsmag.com/2013/02/gendering-floss-issue-2-2-call-for-submissions/) for 2.2, "Gendering F/LOSS," which will revolve around gendered identity and work in F/LOSS and Free Culture. We invite both potential readers and submittors to download, view, write, pull, branch and otherwise engage. We hope, in the coming year and with the help of a growing community, to further push the work of F/LOSS art, design and discussion. About Libre Graphics magazine Libre Graphics magazine (ISSN 1925-1416) is a print publication devoted to showcasing and promoting work created with Free/Libre Open Source Software. Since 2010, we have been publishing work about or including artistic practices which integrate Free, Libre and Open software, standards, culture, methods and licenses. Website: http://libregraphicsmag.com Identi.ca: http://identi.ca/libregraphicsmagazine Twitter: https://twitter.com/libgraphicsmag Gitorious: https://gitorious.org/libregraphicsmag
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Libre Graphics Magazine Issue 2.1
On 10/19/2012 03:19 PM, Ed Trager wrote: Sounds cool Dave! But the article says the submission deadline is October 1. Which I believe has past. Unless I am living in a time warp? No, but we at Libre Graphics mag HQ do ;) We are already at the editing stage for the next issue, but can probably slip in this piece if we get it soon-ish.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] New design work
Hi Robert! Thanks a lot for your really useful feedback. Truth is, we are still brainstorming on the logo in order to find what works best; so the timing of your critique is, well, perfect! We did mention that the version that's online is still a mockup, and we're not that fond of it either. You raise several great points and we will definitely consider them in the design process. On 07/14/2011 08:10 PM, Robert Martinez wrote: 1. raising the brightness with an extra box under the logo reduces the contrast and makes the upper section too vivid without emphasising the logo itself. - why not make the font less bright and skip using the box? Good point. Using a coloured background made more sense before we started on the layout, but you're totally right -- the navigation bar being a different colour from the page does away with the need for yet another coloured box up there. 2. the two-colored logo scheme reflected in the type is too much: -it makes the "f" fall apart from the rest of the logo and defeats the reason for a clear monochrome logo: it adds to the extra vividness around the logo. -it puts an emphasis where none is needed, i think the connection to the open clipart library does not necessarily have to be reflected in the logo itself more than it already does. Yes -- thanks for clarifying that the logo was, indeed, made for monochrome usage. We were just trying out different approaches, and will respect your direction. Also agree on unneeded emphasis. 3. the aligned text on the left of the logo is a weakness. -the current layout starts with two right aligned lines, continues with centered and then stays left aligned. starting with the logo followed by left aligned text would put a natural emphasis on the logo. It even offeres to do something interesting with it there, like scaling it up a bit and putting some catchy visual elements around it that add to the general style. Very good points, thanks for this insight. I really like the preview feature a lot it works great, and the additional information for every font is awesome and readable, too. Much better than before. The fonts are now better separated from each other and the fonts-row stands out, while the sidebars fade away. Also there is more room for the actual fonts and less "head" space. I'll stop commenting for now since the mail is lon enough already :P Wow, thanks for all the feedback! We'll be posting on our blog as soon as we have better results. :r On 07/14/2011 03:06 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: On 14 July 2011 08:12, Dave Crossland wrote: http://blog.manufacturaindependente.org/ http://manufacturaindependente.com/oflb/20110712-homepage/ :)
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] "Font Library"?
On 05/16/2011 07:18 PM, ricardo lafuente wrote: On 05/15/2011 04:11 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi! On 14 May 2011 20:41, Christopher Adams wrote: Please sign in to the Font Library, I see Jon Philips just set up @fontlibrary on Twitter and Identi.ca, and you've just referred to "the Font Library" :-) Could someone explain this new phrase? Seconded, dropping the 'open' in whichever context sounds quite worrying to me. Ping? Can anyone shed some light on this?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] "Font Library"?
On 05/15/2011 04:11 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi! On 14 May 2011 20:41, Christopher Adams wrote: Please sign in to the Font Library, I see Jon Philips just set up @fontlibrary on Twitter and Identi.ca, and you've just referred to "the Font Library" :-) Could someone explain this new phrase? Seconded, dropping the 'open' in whichever context sounds quite worrying to me.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] OpenFontLibrary Digest, Vol 53, Issue 20
On 05/31/2010 09:01 PM, fontfree...@aol.com wrote: Except, of course...We are going to setup OPENFONTLIBRARY.COM as part of FontBasis. Eric Way Openfontlibrary.COM / FontBasis.Org Hi Eric, i got really confused. Looking at past threads, i still couldn't get the following: - What's FontBasis? The domain is parked and i couldn't find more information. - Is openfontlibrary.com distinct from openfontlibrary.org?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Firefox 3.5 is out!
would it be too difficult/impractical to have this run on a font submitted to the OFLB and generate the .eot on demand? i can see the issue in providing files in (another) closed format though. On the other hand, it would eliminate that significant hurdle (IE support) and allow for a statement that fonts in OFLB are cross-browser compatible. Long shot? Dave Crossland wrote: Hi, Its UNIX so should compile on OSX. Regards, Dave On 1 Jul 2009, 3:03 PM, "Joshua A.C. Newman" wrote: Am I correct that there's no Mac version? -J On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:55 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Hi, > > There is an eot converter on code.goo...
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Firefox 3.5 is out!
http://code.google.com/p/ttf2eot it mentions it was only tested on GNU/Linux, but there's no apparent reason why it won't run on a Mac. Just needs to be built with make (you'll probably need to install Xcode Tools for that -- it's on the OSX install DVD) Joshua A.C. Newman wrote: Am I correct that there's no Mac version? -J On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:55 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: Hi, There is an eot converter on code.google.com and its no trouble to convert freed fonts for IE. Regards, Dave On 1 Jul 2009, 12:56 AM, "Joshua A.C. Newman" wrote: Here's hopin'! IE, naturally, doesn't support it. You need to use a tool to convert True-Type (not OpenType) fonts with their Windows-only tool. I would really, really love to be wrong about this. Please, someone show me that I'm wrong. Please. Microsoft. Making the Web worse. -Joshua On Jun 30, 2009, at 7:33 PM, minombresbond wrote: > El Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:25:01 +0100 > Dave Cro... Joshua Newman Design 401.225.7222 Joshua Newman Design 401.225.7222
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Din and Helvetica
Paulo Silva wrote: as Dave know, recently i were working a bit over some Din Schriften Engshrift, which seems to be strongly based on Prussian Railways master drawings. - linked it somewhere at openfontlibrary wiki page ;) are there any decent resolution images of these master drawings, btw?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] theleagueofmoveabletype.com is switching to the Open Font License
Dave Crossland wrote: I spent a few days doing this about a year and a half ago; most emails attached to freeware fonts are now stale, and none of the freeware font authors I reached were interested in the OFL. Oh well. As NS already mentioned, he and I and Ed (and others, I forget) worked on a ODT/PDF "Go For OFL!" letter which got permission from various orgs to use their logo to lend credibility to the letter. The letter is very well written and the presented arguments are solid. However, my criticism of this campaign would be a broad focus on the benefits to the free desktop and not enough arguments for the benefits of the designers themselves, which are surely pretty clear in your reasoning but not present in the letter itself, i believe. Mostly, the targets of this would be people who have no contact with the 'free desktop' whatsoever, and use proprietary software to make their fonts, and that's why i think it's worth taking some time to build up a set of arguments targeting that specific public. Opportunistic as it might sound, one should IMHO try to convince them how the OFL benefits them, instead on how it benefits the FLOSS world. But again, i won't be trying to just bash existing efforts and tell people how they should be doing stuff, so maybe this would be a start: http://openfontlibrary.org/wiki/DesignersPerspectiveOpenFonts . My idea was doing a kind of FAQ, based on a kind of '10 myths about OFL' rationale to be able to present the line of thought i mentioned above. if anyone's also up for it, i'd be interested in group-drafting a FAQ of sorts for designers who might be reluctant to step towards libre licensing of their work, clearing up common misunderstandings and allaying some fears they might have regarding that. Jump into the wiki :-) I'm on it :) quick list of designers that could later be approached: * Jos Buivenga from exljbris (who releases some fonts as freeware as a marketing device for selling extended families) * Manfred Klein I didn't speak to either of these guys. Jos Buivenga (http://www.josbuivenga.demon.nl/) started by publishing gratis typefaces, and now is selling extended families. It's brought him a *lot* of fame recently in the type community as it's a business model that hasn't been seen with this kind of scale. However, his move is seen as a huge thing already (giving away many fonts to sell a few? Heresy!), so i wonder that trying to argue with him (and others) to consider the OFL could only work when the new OFLB website is up and they're able to see for themselves what this all means. The designers of the fonts found over at www.fontsquirrel.com (a well-curated gratis font archive) might also be good to approach someday. * Ray Larabie (the 'free font' legend, maybe he can be convinced to OFL some of his older creations?) I spoke to him; not interested, but kindly explained at length why. sad that a few of his fonts are available at the Ubuntu Multiverse repository, then :/ * LettError (did some funky font experiments, again could be convinced to OFL some older stuff) Erik is on this list; I doubt he would OFL anything, but, I suppose the "free beer" fonts on the letterror site might have a better chance. indeed, that might work. On one hand (and thinking a bit more) i'm not very comfortable with going to proprietary designers and asking for their scraps. On the other, maybe it can be a start and a way to have them dip their feet (and see how the OFL can have practical benefits for them). * House Industries (same as previous) * Underware (even a longer shot, but who knows what experiments they might have hidden in their drawers) I've asked some famous type designers about if they have a "secret stash" of half made type designs in the course of writing a yet to be published essay, and indeed some do. However, given that the purpose of this is to have half-formed projects that can be tailored to suit an incoming brief faster than the competition, I don't see why they would want to publish these things. I also think that they will believe they would lose some reputation for publishing "half-done" stuff. true, very good points there. Maybe there can be a way to hack that and have the 'half-done' release be a good thing... maybe a hackontest of sorts to build derived works from there. Again, on the other hand we're better off encouraging people to improve on already existing OFL works than feeding off the big guys' scraps. I'll be giving this some thought, i'm sure there's some way to make this work. I think I've reached a conclusion about this. Existing type designers want to know how they can get paid for doing type design for a living if they respect users' freedom. And they don't want to know how a couple can work for me, they want to know how all of the existing ones can flip their business around and earn they same kind of money. And the ans
[OpenFontLibrary] Designer advocacy arguments
Hey all, i've posted a FAQ of sorts oriented towards type designers on the wiki: http://openfontlibrary.org/wiki/DesignersPerspectiveOpenFonts#A_Designer_oriented_FAQ it's still a total draft since i'm not yet sure about the arguments that should be put forward, as well as those that should be avoided. Also, i'm afraid some arguments can be a little too agressive for what should be a friendly advocacy guide. Nicolas, maybe you could give some advice as to how it should be worded PR-wise? I can flesh those topics out into full text once it's clear which direction this FAQ should take. also, maybe it could be merged with the list of arguments that were already in that page (which BTW is incredibly rich and useful for persuasion) let me know your thoughts, and please edit mercilessly :o) :r
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] theleagueofmoveabletype.com is switching to the Open Font License
Nicolas Spalinger wrote: [...] Can I suggest extending/completing/adjusting the following resources: http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/downloads/OFLCampaignLetterTemplate.odt With pleasure! I'll look those over during the weekend. There are good thoughts about this in our wiki too. Also, Victor Gaultney and Denis Jacquerye's talks at AtypI conferences made very good points to the question "what's in it for me as a designer in doing open fonts?" Thank you for pointing the way! After i sent the last e-mail i realised i am not really acquainted with the documentation/advocacy work done already, so i'll take some time to see and read what's already there. ricardo
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] theleagueofmoveabletype.com is switching to the Open Font License
Robert Martinez wrote: really cool! are other projects that might jump on the OFLB wagon before FF3.5 comes out? might turn out to be cool for everyone! i'd say we could pitch this to most designers who release freeware fonts. A lot of them will probably not care or be scared of the derivative works provision. However, some might look at it the right way if the arguments for open-ness are well-articulated enough. which reminds me, it would be nice to have a document with a good set of arguments clearing out that the OFL doesn't mean people will be able to 'steal' your stuff any more than a proprietary license (it will actually make you more friends :) if anyone's also up for it, i'd be interested in group-drafting a FAQ of sorts for designers who might be reluctant to step towards libre licensing of their work, clearing up common misunderstandings and allaying some fears they might have regarding that. And then we could get in touch with them, especially given that there's an expert PR person on the boat (go Dave :o) out of my head, a few arguments: * your work will be credited * it would get much more visibility and respect than what the 'free font' websites give * anyone who would steal or hijack an open font would do the same if it was freeware (or even proprietary, given that you can find 90% of commercial fonts on p2p -- not a safe argument but still) * a good metaphor for being open is sharing your lunch and making friends, not opening your house to burglars (this one is *way* too common among designers, in my experience) * and so on. do you think building up this kind of traditional-designer-oriented argumentary makes sense? quick list of designers that could later be approached: * Jos Buivenga from exljbris (who releases some fonts as freeware as a marketing device for selling extended families) * Manfred Klein * Ray Larabie (the 'free font' legend, maybe he can be convinced to OFL some of his older creations?) * Ellen Lupton (not a type designer, but Nicolas's enlightenment on the legal issues could work for OFL PR :) * LettError (did some funky font experiments, again could be convinced to OFL some older stuff) * Hoefler and Frere-Jones (this could be a long shot, but they've built such a huge collection of work that their older stuff could also be opened up) * House Industries (same as previous) * Underware (even a longer shot, but who knows what experiments they might have hidden in their drawers) * i'll shut up for now. Again, most are long shots, but if even one designer would consider it, that would be good enough. I would emphasise that stepping towards the traditional type designer world would be, IMHO, a good if not necessary strategic move for the OFLB and OFL awareness in general. do let me know if it all sounds silly :o)
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] CC Attribution Share Alike Licence & fonts
Nicolas Spalinger wrote: I would say no: because of the major issue that Creative Commons licenses are designed and used for content and not software. CC strongly discourages using a CC combination for software: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F IMHO we don't want to add extra confusion to the choice of licenses. This is a point that the whole hype around Creative Commons made a lot less visible than necessary. Their choice is probably due to some confusion regarding font licensing, like you say -- they seem to come from the design world, and after years of seeing commercial licenses, it's fitting that you run for the first airhole you'd see when you want to 'go open-source' and escape from the proprietary logic. I'm pretty sure that they'd change their terms if someone would approach them and point the caveats like you just did. It looks like a good opportunity to get in touch with designers (who come from the other side of the fence, in a way), and a great way for OFLB and the OFL to gain visibility, maybe? Also -- after Ellen Lupton's release and advocacy of the Free Font Manifesto* (http://www.designwritingresearch.org/free_fonts.html), the design world has become pretty aware of the whole issue of open-source/freedom. However, there's not a lot of legal awareness inside that ecosystem, which results in confusion such as the one you remarked here regarding CC licensing of fonts (which remarkably few designers see as software instead of content or artwork). To me at least, it looks like everybody would win if someone from the OFLB would approach the guys from the 'League of Movable Type', and -- who knows -- other designers who are releasing their fonts as freeware. * which, of course, can be very criticised for its apparent confusion between freeware and libre; however, it does clearly state that 'Like open source software, the freedom of the fonts shown on this page is made explicit through their licensing, which allows other people to not only use the fonts but to modify them'.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Site terminology: Free/Open/Libre
Liam R E Quin wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 11:30 -0300, minombresbond wrote: +1 "libre fonts" +1 for 'libre fonts' too. 'Open' brings me the memory of the free software/open source ideological schism (maybe it's also because that's how i always saw the terms). O 'Free' does have the 'as in beer'/'as in speech' ambiguity, as well as 'free font websites' being the term generally used by professional typographers to decry the quality of no-cost fonts on the web... ...and the 'free' term might also get some spyware detectors crazy, according to http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/090529-073506 ;p Maybe the thing to do is to focus on the difference... You can redistribute "libre" fonts (usually only under a compatible licence); you can use them on the Web; you can print with them; you can change them; you can redistribute changed versions; anyone can get the source for your changes. So, one could say "usable fonts", perhaps. this would be a really interesting take in the debacle, as in proprietary fonts being 'unusable'. I love this idea!
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] What's the big deal about @font-face anyway?
Nicolas Spalinger wrote: So, please tell me, how is making it easier for website designers to enforce their type on me a good thing? More freedom to them :-) and more visibility for open fonts too: as designers get the chance to use fonts besides the MS/Apple non-free 'core-fonts' in order to achieve a consistent look among platforms, the spotlight will be open for many other creations.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] typekit - possible solution for foundries for fonts on the web?
Liam R E Quin wrote: Yes. Instead of giving you digital files with limited usage controlled by software, they don't let you have the file at all. "At least we don't have to wear leg-irons when we walk outside" "Right, they solved that by keeping us indoors" totally true and a great point, and as kottke points out in a quick report (http://www.kottke.org/09/05/typekit-real-fonts-for-the-web), that's pretty darn close to the Youtube model. some relevant differences regarding online type, though: * support for embedding the fonts is already mostly there, whereas support for embedded video in HTML took quite some time after Youtube et al did it with Flash * libre video hosting facilities, likewise, took some time to appear; with OFL, there's already some headway (OFL is there, Typekit is vaporware so far) * fonts are much less an active element of an online experience -- i'll happily watch 10 videos on Youtube, forward them to my friends and forget about them the next day; online fonts aren't really the kind of subject you'd bring up at a party, or share with anyone other than a type designer or web developer. * which reminds me -- with Typekit, you're not supposed to share, just watch a font being used in a page. So the OFL model has still a major selling point compared to TypeKit -- no dependency on 'upstream', ability to download and edit, FLOSS approach to filling out gaps (e.g. i doubt they'll support non-latin alphabets out from the start), and no financial compromise of any sort. But the good side is that they're helping (perhaps) to fuel demand. totally -- i usually try to convince people to switch to a free tool by mentioning 'it's does the stuff InIllusShop does, but it's free, open, transparent, scriptable, community-driven [...]'. Maybe having a proprietary tool to compare with might be a good thing for doing PR (much as the EOT page on the OFL wiki helps make a point regarding open fonts). ricardo
