Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [Fontforge-users] Smashing Magazine on Free Fonts
On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:31 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote: > "Free fonts will never match the quality of the fonts offered by top type > design foundries." If he means “free fonts” as a whole, compared to “the fonts offered by top type design foundries” as a whole, then maybe i can see that. But if he is talking about individual fonts, that just seems like a dumb statement, because there are plenty of examples of free fonts that offer better ‘quality’ than some non-free fonts from the ’top design foundries’. -v
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Libre Graphics Meeting 2014: Call For Paper
does sound really great. :) On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:50, Raphaël Bastide wrote: > Let me know if you think it make sense for a prez in Leipzig.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Libre Graphics Meeting 2014: Call For Paper
:) thanks Frank. I’m not anti slowness, just thought it would make an interesting subject for a talk. Wherease yet another talk on ‘being efficient’… snore-dom! As a painter as well as a font maker, i can appreciate the opposite of ‘quick and easy’ too, but ‘efficiency’ does not allways give the most interesting results either. Myron Stout (http://www.pinterest.com/newtypo/myron-stout/) took decades to paint single geometric paintings. Also; life is very short and likely totally meaningless :) -v On 6 Jan 2014, at 00:30, Frank E. Blokland wrote: > Vernon: 'I’m toying with the idea of submitting something like an “A > non-experts guide to making libre fonts, quickly and easily […]' > > I suggest 'efficiently' instead of 'quickly and easily'. I'm making fonts > since the midst 1980s and I have never considered this easy. > > In the period 1980-1996 the Dutch pianist and conductor Reinbert de Leeuw > recorded Satie's 'Gnossiennes' and 'Gymnopédies'. He performed these > *extremely* slow (for instance his first 'Gymnopédie' is half as fast as Aldo > Ciccolini's interpretation). I recall his remark that there were many > pianists that could play fast, but that nobody could play as slow as he did. > The result is absolutely beautiful. > > FEB > > -- > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss > > ---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Font Directory Discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Libre Graphics Meeting 2014: Call For Paper
oh. good one! :) On 5 Jan 2014, at 14:53, Dave Crossland wrote: > > I’m toying with the idea of submitting something like an “A non-experts > > guide to making libre fonts, quickly and easily”, suggesting workflows, > > techniques, floss software, that can be used for anyone with the > > inclination to produce and publish free fonts. > > Book sprint 2.0? >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Libre Graphics Meeting 2014: Call For Paper
Dave, Do you have talks (or know of talks) planned from the ‘libre font’ area that fit the call for presentations on "how the gap between technical and design development can be bridged” ? I’m toying with the idea of submitting something like an “A non-experts guide to making libre fonts, quickly and easily”, suggesting workflows, techniques, floss software, that can be used for anyone with the inclination to produce and publish free fonts. -v On 5 Jan 2014, at 07:23, Dave Crossland wrote: > Quick reminder that the call for papers is closing in a few weeks :)
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Anitype!
I’ve been wondering if the technology can be applied to other more interesting uses. On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:31, Richard Fink wrote: > I had checked this out when Dave first posted it and I think it's dynamite. I > can't wait to see this done with other letterforms. > > There are sections in the work of Professor Richard Lanham (an expert in > Rhetoric and the use of words who's written some McLuhanesque stuff > describing letterforms snaking and jumping around just like this) Anyway, it > reminded me of Lanham's writings. > Prescience. > > yes, I know that many designers and certainly most print font creators are > going to look upon this as the second coming of the BLINK tag but I think it > will find it's place. > > > Very cool. > > > > > > On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:48:08 PM UTC-5, Dave Crossland wrote: > http://www.anitype.com/ the > > "Anitype asks a simple question: what if letters could move? > > For thousands of years, letters have sat static on the page, but > thanks to today's modern devices, they could do a lot more — they > could dance and jump and wriggle their way across the screen. And you > could help decide how they move. > > Anitype invites you to animate letters with JavaScript, so we can > begin to see what an animated typeface might look like on the web." > > -- > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Font Directory Discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] WordPress & fonts, bundling vs. linking
If it’s totally essential and function well, then i would say the extra % is just a fact-of-life. But i would think that bundling a full pan-international font into what is essentially a web-based framework, plus adding and configuring all the extra to make that font function well across devices and browsers, is not really *that* essential or functional. Ironically, a remote web-based font, is a fairly discreet solution for wordpress. Or, they could just lobby the OS vendors to bundle OpenSans into all their OS’s? :o) -v On 13 Nov 2013, at 04:00, Manuel Schmalstieg wrote: > Vernon, indeed that font is for the WordPress UI that is being "modernized". > > Regarding filesize: a default WordPress install is pretty small, about > 6.5 mb (compressed). If you include a font with a wide character set, > x 4 weights, x 4 formats (WOFF, SVG, TTF, EOT), suddenly the font > takes a significant % of the whole package...
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] WordPress & fonts, bundling vs. linking
I’m not sure i understand the reason for bundling in a font like that? Is it to be used for the wordpress UI etc? If so then i can’t see the big deal in fussing over the extra kb’s. Isn’t a default Wordpress install big enough that the extra footprint of a single font family a non-issue? -v On 11 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Manuel Schmalstieg wrote: > Over at > http://make.wordpress.org/core/2013/11/11/open-sans-bundling-vs-linking/ > the WordPress crowd is pondering the pros and cons of bundling a > webfont (OpenSans) with the next version of WP. > > The main question is: how to keep the filesize small enough, while > meeting the multiple user needs regarding character sets. > > I'm sure they would be happy about some advice from the experts here :) > > Manuel
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Setting up self hosting
The criticism is usually based on around 2 things; ‘quality' and ‘money’. The argument allways goes along the lines of; ‘all these free fonts are lowering type design standards’, and, ‘all these free fonts are reducing the traditional economic value of fonts’. I’m sure there’s some videos or 2 from Atypi etc. Ironically, i agree with him, and can see his point of view (if i use my imagination). His conclusion is to strongly advise the public not to use all these ‘Free fonts’ (apart frorm the one’s he has designed, of course). I disagree on his conclusion. Mainly because i think ‘free fonts’ are a sign of very real and non-reversible technological and social changes that the web has brought. Also, i think there are positive sides to the loosening and broadening (i would not say ‘lowering’) of type design 'standards’. -vernon On 5 Nov 2013, at 19:43, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: >> He runs a well known type design agency. He’s a loud critic of Free fonts. > > Just to feed my curiosity... How does one design free fonts and then > criticize free fonts? Any URLs to share?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Setting up self hosting
On 5 Nov 2013, at 10:52, noo...@aol.com wrote: > HAHAHA! Who iz Bruno Maag? He runs a well known type design agency. He’s a loud critic of Free fonts. But don’t get the wrong idea, i like him and admire the work he & his agency does. Just thought it would make a good specimen for JRUG_PUNK. So nooalf, when are we going to see your fonts being used big time? They should be on billboards imo. > > How do you get the font to show up without it being installed? > (I'm on a Chromebook rite now) If you want to view the character set of a font using a Chromebook, you can add the .otf or .ttf file to your google drive @ https://drive.google.com/#my-drive then you can double click the font file in your drive, and Google docs will preview the font characters for you. > > The correct spelling for that iz KoKSUKR. can’t believe i missed that
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Thomas Phinney and Libre Fonts plus Font Quality continued
Chrome says == "The Website Ahead Contains Malware! Google Chrome has blocked access to webfonts101.com for now. What is the current listing status for webfonts101.com? Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer. Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 1 time(s) over the past 90 days. What happened when Google visited this site? Of the 1 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2013-09-16, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2013-09-16." :) On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:26, rfink0...@gmail.com wrote: > Reworked Josefin regular here: > > http://webfonts101.com/josefink/josefink-reg.htm
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Thomas Phinney and Libre Fonts plus Font Quality continued
Challenge time :) I’ll run it through Kernagic, you do it ‘your way'. We can judge whether the results are useful. -v On 2 Nov 2013, at 08:46, rfink0...@gmail.com wrote: > Josefin's spacing is indeed out of whack. I agree with TP that it's broken
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Setting up self hosting
My specimen references some famous Gilbert & George art pieces. It’s good to see people making fonts like this. Type should be made from these sort of marks too. I see them as liberational, and equally as beautiful as the marks on the Trajan column. Seriously. -v On 1 Nov 2013, at 18:28, Dave Crossland wrote: > Please keep it polite, vern. >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Setting up self hosting
i like “oRMR_MK3” a LOT :) On 1 Nov 2013, at 17:59, Raphaël Bastide wrote: > Ok noo...@aol.com I just discovered your website and it’s amazing. > What are the licences of your fonts ? > > -- > Raphaël Bastide > raphaelbastide.com > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 1 November 2013 18:24, wrote: > > Turnz out pretty good doing it this way > > Sick >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Setting up self hosting
Sure, i think we are nearly already there. When i say ‘webfont server’ i just mean anything (e.g. just a bit of php) that allows a user in one part of the word to create a webpage that pulls a font from another part of the world, without the need for too much css coding. I don’t see any reason why the activity of ‘serving’ fonts should be centred just with ‘professionals’, every rented web space could have it’s own fontserver running, just like every webspace nowadays has it own sql server etc running. -v On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:58, Garrick van Buren wrote: > Vernon, > > I think we're already there. Modern web servers do a great job of serving > font files just as they do a great job of serving image files, javascript > files, html files, and css files. From my perspective, treating one kind of > web-delivered asset differently than others introduces an unnecessary level > of complexity across the entire design/development/deployment process. This > is why I see libre fonts as the only opportunity for sustained growth and > innovation for typography. Everything else restricts in too many unintended > ways. > > --- > Garrick van Buren > http://garrickvanburen.com > 612 325 9110 > --- > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 4:25 PM, vernon adams wrote: > >> I think you are right. >> Imo the web would be much more robust and fertile if type was even more >> ‘democratised’ and ‘autonomous’. The big web companies would be much better >> served by a few big font servers amid swarms of small font servers. >> Repeating myself, i know, :) but if webfont servers could be as commonplace >> and as easy to use as all those zillions of Wordpress installations across >> the web… it would be awesome. >> >> -v >> >> >> On 29 Oct 2013, at 12:23, Garrick van Buren wrote: >> >>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >>>> >>>> This is why Google Fonts is better than self hosting. Its likely >>>> you've already cached the most popular Google Fonts. >>> >>> >>> Sure, that's the argument for linking to any of Google-hosted resources >>> (jQuery, etc). >>> >>> Personally, I feel this approach make the web more fragile, masks the >>> approachability of HTML/CSS, and introduces privacy concerns. >>> >> >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Setting up self hosting
I think you are right. Imo the web would be much more robust and fertile if type was even more ‘democratised’ and ‘autonomous’. The big web companies would be much better served by a few big font servers amid swarms of small font servers. Repeating myself, i know, :) but if webfont servers could be as commonplace and as easy to use as all those zillions of Wordpress installations across the web… it would be awesome. -v On 29 Oct 2013, at 12:23, Garrick van Buren wrote: > On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> >> This is why Google Fonts is better than self hosting. Its likely >> you've already cached the most popular Google Fonts. > > > Sure, that's the argument for linking to any of Google-hosted resources > (jQuery, etc). > > Personally, I feel this approach make the web more fragile, masks the > approachability of HTML/CSS, and introduces privacy concerns. >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Setting up self hosting
I think we could assume that someone self hosting a handfull of fonts isn’t likely to be pushing to billions of font calls, per font, every week. Though it would be interesting to run an experiment and see what figures are possible :) On 29 Oct 2013, at 11:19, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 29 October 2013 14:11, Garrick van Buren wrote: >> Yes, cache headers can eliminate this issue for subsequent loads - assuming >> your site is someplace people will visit repeatedly within the cache >> lifetime. > > This is why Google Fonts is better than self hosting. Its likely > you've already cached the most popular Google Fonts.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Setting up self hosting
I’m not sure Quinn is after what you think he is :) Quinn… do you mean you want to serve fonts like the example i am serving from http://newtypography.net/testing/ ? A.k.a you want your fonts to be served to remote web pages by simply adding a 'link href’ line to the head of the source html document and then using the ‘font-family’ to set text ? You (or anyone else using your webfont) would not have to write those lines and lines of @font-face rules in css documents? A.k.a users can’t simply browse the css source and see that ‘myfont.ttf’ is residing at ‘http://myweb.com/fonts/myfont.ttf' Of course, even if you use a ‘server’, people can still download the fonts, e.g. by using Chrome's ‘Developer Tools -> Elements’ and grabbing the woff files of any fonts embedded in the page. -v On 29 Oct 2013, at 10:39, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 29 October 2013 13:05, Quinn Keaveney wrote: >> By saying I don't want to use @ff I just mean that I want to use an @ff that >> obfuscates the link/src file so you can not just click and download the >> woff. > > This is impossible.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Thomas Phinney and Libre Fonts plus Font Quality continued
Rich, your directness makes me laugh :D There’s something of The Onion about all this; “Local man thoroughly unimpressed by 30–40% of commercial fonts”. Didn’t they once run a story “Local man shuns restaurant because of bad kerning in menu”? also, talking of keeping objective, which is the lesser font quality; a font that ‘sucks’? or a font that ‘stinks’? -v On 29 Oct 2013, at 09:04, rfink0...@gmail.com wrote: > If you think for one second that the following statement from your article > has anything to do with "font quality" or possesses any objectivity, or is > helpful to anyone in any way, you are fooling yourself: > > "I am pretty harsh about font quality. Most of the fonts I have made have > never shipped, because my conceptions of quality early on outstripped my > ability to execute at that quality level. So I will be the first to say that > there are plenty of commercial fonts that suck. Easily 30–40% of commercial > fonts leave me thoroughly unimpressed. If you look at libre fonts, and use > the Google Fonts collection as your baseline, maybe 65% of those fonts suck. > If you just look at all free fonts on dafont, maybe 95% of those fonts stink." > > Bet the statement above got a big round of applause at ATYPI! > > You can say it ain't so over and over again till you are blue in the face but > this is about "my shit doesn't stink but yours does".
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Setting up self hosting
Hi Quinn! I keep wanting to find this out too. IMO it’s the missing key to a typographic revolution :) You might want to look at https://github.com/garrickvanburen/Fontue It is a few years old now. Have you searched on github for ‘font server’ and ‘webfont server’ ?? Brings up a few potentially interesting projects. I would be very interested to hook up on anything you find and help however i can to get something up and running. On 28 Oct 2013, at 21:19, Quinn Keaveney wrote: > Hello Dave, > I was wondering if you could help/point me towards how to set up a self > hosting service so that I don't have to use @font-face. Has google fonts > looked into this? Do you know how to do this? I can't seem to find any > tutorials. > > - ℚ > > mail. qke...@gmail.com > tel. 312.623.3017 > web. quinnkeaveney.com > b[log]. l3tt3r.com > twitter. quinn_chirps
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Thomas Phinney and Libre Fonts plus Font Quality continued
Of course, there is no theoretical reason, and no-one has actually said that there should be a reason. The only good reasons i could cite, if i was debating this issue, is that often fonts from from the ‘libre worlds’ are developed within a very different framework to fonts developed in the traditional commercial / proprietary worlds. So, software from the libre world is often developed within a ‘release early’ or ‘open development’ framework. In my own experience, fonts i have published have been initially published only after just a few weeks development time; then the more usage they attract the more time i put into refining and improving them. If anyone thinks that’s not a good idea, i don’t care :) because i am pretty secure in my reasons for developing fonts in this way. But, I think my main unhappiness with the now usual criticisms against these fonts in question (and no-one ever names them!?) is that there seems to be an assumption that if a Libre font lacks a certain ‘quality’ then it represents some kind of ‘font industry problem’ that needs to be adressed by a range of measures, from some kind of "educating the public" to recognise and disregard these fonts, to some kind of ‘naming and shaming’ of individual designers. I can’t see any mileage in those sort of responses; the complainers just look at best out of touch, at worst, mean-spirited. -v On 28 Oct 2013, at 08:58, Thomas Phinney wrote: > Quality, creativity, libre license There is no theoretical reason you > can't have all of these things with a single typeface, even if there may be > dynamics in play that tend to make creativity and libre licensing correlate > negatively with quality, on average.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: automated font creators
Sure. I guess i mean a system that, either with or without input work, aims to be able to automatically create arrays of glyphs and weights or any major aspect of drawn features in a font that are normally done by a human. Does that make sense ? :) -v On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:06, Thomas Phinney wrote: > Can you define what makes an "automated font creator"? > > Metapolator requires so much input work that, although it is very powerful, I > don't think of it as "automated" exactly. > > T
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] automated font creators
Along with http://prototypo.io/ http://metapolator.com/ does anyone know what other similar automated font creator schemes are out there are at the moment? Many thanks -vernon
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
Interesting thoughts (as usual) Eric. Thanks. I think you are right about 'quality as paramount' being a just a 'strategy'. It explains why some designers may consider themselves (and present themeselves) as a purveyor of quality, and yet not necessarily provide such paramount levels of quality in their own products. And anyway, i'm not sure that the technical quality we are discussing here is really as big a selling point as people think. We live in far more interesting times than that. If you are only really offering technical quality, then you are maybe pitching your products on the wrong side of todays curve. Just like, it's not possible to sell music just on the fact that the artist is a virtuoso, or that the music was recoded at highest definition. Virtuosity and high definition alone, cannot compete against amateurs and / or lo-fi that contains more slippery qualities such as soul, excitement, rhythm, emotion, freedom... and the list goes on… In the days before the Music Industry evaporated, the idea that you did not need technical expertise at any stage in the music business to succesfully distribute music to users and listeners, would have been viewed as idiotic. Technology has now made that idiotic idea a very normal way for people to make, distribute, use and listen to music. On top of that, despite the askew claims of a few like David Byrne, the creativity, choice and variety, of music available to everyone now is enormous, compared to the days when the Music Industry was the big gatekeeper of what we could listen to. The same has started happening with type design, just as it has done / will do with many other commercial sectors. What i would say to also bear in mind is that as more and more 'non-experts' and 'amateurs' join the ranks of the design world, then even the designer-as-the-target-client changes for the type industry. The user swarm is very quickly filling the design industries too. I think i see evidence that the creative and design comminities are generally moving more away from finding meaning in the 'quality as paramount' strategy, and more towards finding paramount meaning in any stuff that really keeps them the right side of the creative curve. And it's not due to a lowering of standards or non-education, it's the opposite; people are maybe becoming more sophisticated, fine-tuned, and discriminating in their tastes as they become exposed to more and more alternative narratives of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. -vernon On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:57, Eric Schrijver wrote: > I went to the ATypI, and it was an interesting experience. What I found > remarkable, is the pervasive idea that graphic designers know nothing about > type. A well known Dutch designer explained me: ‘nowadays, there is only one > way designers can really intervene in a font, and that is by changing the > spacing (tracking, leading). And when I look at contemporary magazines, I see > they manage to mess that up! Imagine what will happen if one allows them more > possibilities.’ > > Type design is a funny business. The ATypI style type design thinking, is to > conceive of the type designer as an artist, who creates a finished work. > Except, they have the misfortune, that compared to other artistic fields, > this work can only exist if it is re-used. And it will be re-used by people > who are deemed to be incompetent—the artist is misunderstood! > > It is kind of like going to a conference of stock photographers. They all > claim magazine editors know nothing about photography. They keep cropping! > > As a graphic designer, as Raphaël rightly points out, this is of course a > frustrating argument. The typographic community claims designers do not know > ‘quality’, whereas we might simply not always be interested in their sense of > quality. There are design jobs in which you need a clean, evenly spaced, well > balanced typeface, and their might be a job for which you need something more > rough, immediate and unpolished. > > And because both kinds of design aesthetic continue to exist in modern > design, traditional type design skills will stay valuable. Except, like > Vernon says, type designers need to understand that a top down model where > they push a selected, curated set of typefaces on the world does not exist > (and has never existed, not since the internet at least), and that they can > not really get away with being so elitist as to postulate that no-one > understands type. > > Cheers, > Eric > > PS The concept of ‘quality’ as paramount, is of course, a strategy— Ricardo > Lafuente is onto something when he borrows Fred Smeijers’ terminology, to > describe type designers efforts to separate type designers into “true” type > designers and mere font tweakers [1]. I wrote some more about the economic > reasoning traditionalist conception of type on my blog [2]. > > [1] > http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/blog/typo/appropriation-an
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
On 17 Oct 2013, at 02:39, Khaled Hosny wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 01:15:44AM -0700, Vernon Adams wrote: >> Pablo clearly 'gets it' :) >> >> I assume that the response from people who "dont get it" would be that >> you should have both; 'freedom' and 'quality', and i wouldn't argue >> with that, it's a good target. But... > > We should. I find the praising of bad quality fonts very troubling and > denigrating to the free software movement. Free software has always been > about freedom, true, but also it always strived for the for the highest > standards, and we should do the same in libre fonts, not justify doing > lousy jobs because it is more “ground breaking” because that is a false > dichotomy. Khaled, On the designers side of things i don't know what 'praising of bad quality fonts' might be, so i don't know what you might be referring to. Maybe you are getting the wrong end of the stick? :) I think you have described below, the way free software has generally approached output. 'Early and often' is by it's nature, accepting that 'quality' is a moveable bar at the release stage. I've used free software long enough to have heard all the old arguments of why 'early and often' is a 'threat to quality' and therefore 'bad for users', etc, etc. Through those 20+ years though adoption of free software methods has ballooned, and the world is still spinning :) -v > > I’m a big fan of incremental improvements; “release early, release > often”, and I had released very defective fonts (to my standard) because > I believe in user participation of improving the quality (and people did > participate, though not by actual hacking on the fonts), but that has > always been an interim measure not a goal, and such releases are > usually accompanied with big warnings so that people know what they are > getting into. > > Regards, > Khaled
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
s they don't have to fear > that they may get sued if the use the font for something not specified in the > license legalese. > > They are more "convenient" in a "practical" way. > Working with Libre fonts is EASIER. Users have less administrative job to do, > and less things to worry about. > > They also avoid all the process of buying a font: Creating and account, > taking out the credit card, paying, keeping track of the license, etc, etc... > Libre Fonts are just there.. always available and ready to be used, legally > and worry free. > > In companies and agencies where there any many departments involved > (accounting, legal, etc) the process is even more complex, and the removal of > all those obstacles is even more appealing. > > When people complain about the quality, I think of a few examples: > When Wikipedia started, people also complained about quality. > A few years later, quality improved and was not an issue any more. > > When Metal Typefaces replaced the scribes, people complained. Quality was not > good compared scribes. > However, Metal Typefaces replaced the scribes because they where more > "convenient" in a "practical" way. > > It was the same process when the first digital generation of commercial fonts > where made. Quality was not good compared to Metal Typefaces, people > complained (some still complain). However digital fonts replaced metal and > phototype fonts because they where more "convenient" in a "practical" way. > > Mankind always tries to make things easier, to remove obstacles, and to get > the job done faster. > Libre fonts are more "convenient" in a "practical" way. > > People have other things to do in their daily lives. > So many things to do... so little time. > And Libre Fonts get the job done, faster, easier. > > They are not a "technological" advance, like from scribes to metal, or form > metal to digital. > But the effect of the Libre License is comparable. > They have removed obstacles, making life easier for the people who use them. > > > > > > 2013/10/17 > I dont know much about the world uv type design, but I get wut youre saying, > Vernon. All professionz tend to get fossilized over time. People run out uv > ideaz, even az they bekum masterz uv their art. They also tend to create > obstaclez to entry. > > With teknolojyz that are in the early stajez uv development its probably even > harder for individualz who did the hard work at the beginning to let young > wippersnapperz bild on their work. I suspect thats why Fontlab iznt very good > - helps keep 'amatuerz' out. > > JO > > -Original Message- > From: vernon adams > To: googlefontdirectory-discuss > Cc: Open Font Library > Sent: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 6:53 pm > Subject: Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts > > I've sat on this a few days, just to clarify my thoughts a little. > > Browsing the WebInk catalogue, i don't see any evidence of what Thomas's > great > alternative for web fonts could be, and i'm still not sure what he is > effectively saying, beyond simply penning a biased criticism of a particular > webfont project. I don't doubt that the products served from WebINk are > 'point > perfect' (hmm i wonder), but apart from that, many of the products seem to > exist > in a vacuum. The standard faces can mostly be also accessed from other > providers > (and i bet that's where users do go! e.g Typekit is wy better), and much > of > what is 'original' or exclusive to WebINk seem to be in a stye no-mans land. > I > just don't see any outstanding quality there overall, and i dont see much > there > that i imagine designers get excited about. To me it looks like a product > that > desperately needs a shot of fresh blood, or indeed something even stronger, > to > bring something energising and want-able to the brand. Basic better direction > would be a good start. Assuming that the 'technical quality' is a given with > WebInk, then Extensis do have at least one good quality to build on. What > they > need to snap into that regime of technical quality is at the very least some > desireable, infectious font faces. That's where the hard work starts though; > creative output can allways be refined and improved technically (engineers > can > do clean up work), but it's wrong-way-round to create the other way. Doing it > the other way round is less efficient - the end result is likely well crafted > fonts, but nowhere near enough fonts
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
Sure, i know Thomas doesnt mention webink in his criticism. I have read his article :) But looking back at the webink situation is a good way of providing an alternative lense through which to look at the Libre fonts that Thomas has criticised on his blog. It's often enlightening to compare 'similar' products, and ask why does one have any edge on another. Seems like a rather obvious link to make to me. I think if you open up a debate or offer public criticism on an issue you should expect to be openly debated and counter criticised on that same issue. I'm just returning the favour, and offering some positive criticism on WebINK, which i think clearly needs a shot in the arm, when compared to it's competitors. -v On 16 Oct 2013, at 13:45, Dave Crossland wrote: > Thomas really isn't comparing the libre fonts in Google's library to > the WebINK library, though. He doesn't mention WebINK once, he posted > it on his personal blog... your criticism still seems to be rather > unfair. > It seems the most popular fonts on WebINK are not new designs, but > familiar names: Yes exactly. And the less popular and non-familiar faces look like they will forever stay less popular and non-familiar ;)
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
I've sat on this a few days, just to clarify my thoughts a little. Browsing the WebInk catalogue, i don't see any evidence of what Thomas's great alternative for web fonts could be, and i'm still not sure what he is effectively saying, beyond simply penning a biased criticism of a particular webfont project. I don't doubt that the products served from WebINk are 'point perfect' (hmm i wonder), but apart from that, many of the products seem to exist in a vacuum. The standard faces can mostly be also accessed from other providers (and i bet that's where users do go! e.g Typekit is wy better), and much of what is 'original' or exclusive to WebINk seem to be in a stye no-mans land. I just don't see any outstanding quality there overall, and i dont see much there that i imagine designers get excited about. To me it looks like a product that desperately needs a shot of fresh blood, or indeed something even stronger, to bring something energising and want-able to the brand. Basic better direction would be a good start. Assuming that the 'technical quality' is a given with WebInk, then Extensis do have at least one good quality to build on. What they need to snap into that regime of technical quality is at the very least some desireable, infectious font faces. That's where the hard work starts though; creative output can allways be refined and improved technically (engineers can do clean up work), but it's wrong-way-round to create the other way. Doing it the other way round is less efficient - the end result is likely well crafted fonts, but nowhere near enough fonts, and maybe no killer fonts. In many ways the Google font project was an audacious one; rule breaking, taking chances, and a lot of doing things that 'experts' said you should not, or, could not do. That adds up to strategy where 'room for improvement' is built in, it's a system of rolling enhancement, improvement, further innovation, in which the user is an integral part. Playing a bit of 'what if…?' though, i wonder how a project with the same aims and scope would have faired under the management of say WebInk. I just dont think it would have happened, or, we would still be waiting for it to happen. My hunch is that it would not have had the same wide variety of designers involved, nor aimed at the same wide stylistic and user coverage. It would probably not have focussed on usage stats, adoption waves, and plugging directly into the hub of the other nascent free software communities and products, but instead relied upon the 'expertise' of a few the same old selected individuals. It would have also been slower, or resistant, to try non-expert approaches. I dont think it would have been much of a model. One thing i can agree on; i would also love to see more creative people making 'better quality' fonts, me included :). My argument with Thomas on this subject is that biasing too much toward 'point perfection' and near disregarding the actual creative input, is a bad approach; it creates a lesser education, and ultimately creates lesser designers. But then i was indoctrinated by the totally awesome British Art School sytem of the 70s & 80s :) I think it's better to start with the creative impulse, get looking, get making and making, filter out, and then head towards refinement and improvement. -vernon On 14 Oct 2013, at 16:20, Thomas Phinney wrote: > I do criticize Google web fonts, but only saying the exact same things I have > been saying directly to the two Daves for several years now, in the spirit of > constructive criticism, because I care about quality. If I was just out to > make a buck I would not have given that feedback privately and passionately > long before criticizing publicly. > > BTW, quality is not about elites vs the masses. Everybody benefits from > well-crafted fonts, including casual users. > > I happen to agree with you that there are a lot of well-crafted fonts that > are stultifyingly boring. But unlike technical quality, aesthetics are a > matter of opinion, and I wasn't trying to go there. > > I also happen to think that a lot of creative and aesthetically interesting > are done by people who don't know how to make decent quality fonts (or > perhaps know but don't care, in some cases). I would love to see those people > learn how to make better quality fonts. > > That's why I joined Crafting Type: I am eager to help teach the basics of > type design to more people, and to make sure that spacing, point placement > and various optical compensations are well covered in that discussion. > > One thing I could have said more clearly in my blog post is that one can get > passable but not fabulous quality without a lot more work than the amount > required to make crap. Proper point placement and half-decent spacing and so > forth are not *that* hard, nor horribly slow once one has the right work > habits.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
hahah! I forgot about your 'font detective' talk ! :-) Can i cheekily suggest you can now add a 'font police' talk too ;) On 14 Oct 2013, at 18:03, vernon adams wrote: > Who rang the Font Police?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
Thomas, I know it's unfounded (well maybe) :) i was being purposely unfair and facetious, exactly as i feel you have been unfair and facetious over of the fonts your are rubbishing. Touché! I feel you are picking on a non-issue, in a way that is out of proportion, unfair, and out of touch. Where's the harm in fonts that 'you' think are bad, being used by other people? Who rang the Font Police? and why allways only pick on one aspect of type quality to purposely rubbish one set of designers? Why that bias? I see a much bigger issue with a lack of creativity in the type world than i see a problem of technical ineptitude. As Raphaël Bastide pointed out earlier in this thread, there is more interesting type work is happening toward the fringes. I agree totally with Raphaël, and add that it's certainly not happening in the rump of the type world. The more interesting qualities being pursued in type are by designers and studios often using what you would label 'sub standard' type, and type you would probably prefer to see cleaned up or pushed out. Variety and choice will allways trump, and the danger in telling people too much what to think and what to do, is that you hinder variety and choice. 'Great' fonts will be made, 'bad' fonts will be made, and everything in between fonts will be made. That's really good, not bad! Oh, and trends and fashions will likely change here and there, what users consider 'great', 'bad' and indifferent anyway. -v On 14 Oct 2013, at 16:20, Thomas Phinney wrote: > Vern, that's an unfair and unfounded accusation. > > If I was trying to promote WebINK, I'd be doing it on the WebINK blog, not my > personal blog.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
On 14 Oct 2013, at 15:18, Dave Crossland wrote: >> Tom is just saying "hey, use our stuff. Your stupid if you use that free >> stuff." > > No, he's not. Yes he is, you just don't realise it ;) See how well it worked! It's the subliminal subtext =8-)
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
On 14 Oct 2013, at 10:28, rfink0...@gmail.com wrote: > My beef is that we still seem to be talking about fonts as tools for the > graphic arts. When it comes to fonts for the web, what is being offered is > still a joke. (Yes, there are always exceptions - don't pounce.) > > Bottom line this: Quality is not what the maker puts in, it's what the > buyer/user gets out. The maker does not define what constitutes quality. > (Most importantly, do NOT equate the need for time-consuming fussiness with > "quality". A lot of fuss is indicative of nothing except an inefficient > manufacturing system.) > > This notion is certainly not original to me. (Read Peter Drucker on the > subject, or Edward Deming - the father of modern Statistical Quality Control > in manufacturing.) Nail on head. 20+ years ago, fonts were largely professional tools, used almost exclusively in publishing (desktop or corporate). That exclusive role is now history, just as the era when fonts were only housed at the printer, as metal, is history. Fonts are now 'for everyone', and to cater to that new, mass market, the old products need some change and they need some differing approaches than before. This all could be an interesting discussion, except I read Tom's article not as part of any discussion, but as a piece of Online Advertising for the WebInk product. Tom is just saying "hey, use our stuff. Your stupid if you use that free stuff." I think that sort of journo-advertising would be better effective by showing people why the WebInk product is really good, what sets it apart positively from other webfont services, and ultimately why its target users should invest in it. Dissing other people's more poular output never looks good, it 'turns on' a few people, but 'turns off' a lot more. It's bad branding 101. -v
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
Well, yes and no. Technical quality and taste are not the same thing (of course) but the aesthetic qualities of an object are as much a technical aspect of that object, as is it's functionality, topography, ergonomics, etc etc. Only the most fundamentalist 'engineer mind' would disagree with that, because for the most part, how an object looks AND functions are intrinsically intertwined in whether that object gets consumed or not. Type is a highly consumable object, and it is not actually so very very technical in fact. Type is not like a spacecraft that relies on technical rigour and excellence to the nth degree and needs zero aesthetics. Also, what level of technical inadequacy would make a font 'junk' or (in your words) "simply crap, or at least substandard" anyway? Give us some examples, and also, show us how your example fonts are such a cause for concern. I would say the problem is the other way round. There's too many boring type designers at the controls, not too many technically inept type designers at the controls :) I think way too many type designers seem to obsess over technical gymnastics and fail to make anything that excites aesthetically, or nail it aesthetically. There's a LOT of superbly made, but very dull type, totally cut off from both mainstream and offstream culture. And to make it worse, there's lots of dull type made by designers who tow the 'technical is everything' line at the expense of aesthetics, but are not that great technically anyway ;) -vernon On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:42, Thomas Phinney wrote: > Sorry, no. Technical quality is not determined by popular opinion of the > masses. Quality and taste are not equivalent concepts subject to the same > determinations and forces.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
This is actually the line i find most nonsensical ;) Where is the harm in "junk fonts"? I just dont see it. Why even waste energy in jumping up and down about it? Unless you have a presentation to write to soothe the retired gatekeepers convention, i guess ;) People find a use for junk fonts, people dont find a use for them. People find a use for super-standard fonts, people dont find a use for them. It's the same thing. Type is no longer a rarified, elistist product, that only stays consumed within rarified, elite sections of societies. Fonts are now as common as muck. I can see that some people's tastes are offended by this reality, but rarified 'tastes' will allways be offended, in fact the ability to have one's 'tastes' offended seems to be 'zeitgeist No. 1' in this post-post-modern age, everyone's now a taste-monger and quality-tester to the point where 'taste' and 'quality' have never had less concrete meaning, and 'good taste' and 'quality' are now firmly residing at street level, not at ivory tower level. Besides, it's all about Stats now. And also, irony, Thomas, your idea of 'good taste' may not even be on any 'taste' scale for the unwashed, twerking, instagrammified masses. The danger is, that you may now be the one lagging behind in taste and sense of quality :-) To me, your argument make no sense; doesn't Google (and the net as a whole) put these decisions (of taste and quality) in the hands of the experts par-excellance, aka 'the user'. If a font gets used 'en mass' then it has clearly passed the taste & quality & etc test. Are you suggesting that this very effective system would be better replaced by using a small group of 'experts' to deal with deciding what all users want? Quaint idea. Who would you pick to be in your gatekeeper group? And also, surely dont the webfont services provided by the big Font Foundries use your gatekeeper model? Why then have the google font servers managed under the same system? Isn't it better to have a breadth of diversity? Whats the big deal in 'unifying' font design in this day and age? -vernon On 13 Oct 2013, at 03:09, Pablo Impallari wrote: > "One of my perennial arguments with the folks at Google is about the fact > that they didn’t have a very high quality bar at all, and let in an awful lot > of fonts that I would say are simply crap or at least substandard, at an > objective level. Some of the folks on the Google side of the fence say that > they are simply giving their users free choice and that if one of the fonts I > consider to be junk becomes popular, then that’s evidence that it was > actually “good.” I don’t have much patience for this line of argument. I > think that Google is abandoning what it ought to see as a responsibility to > be a gatekeeper not of taste, but of quality, given that it is not hard to > find the expertise to deal with these things."
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] OFL-FAQ update 3 published
That's a very good idea. It's a practise that would also help designers and users in the area of version numbers for fonts too. -v On 25 Sep 2013, at 08:10, Victor Gaultney wrote: > 3.8: Encouragement to use special names for fonts in development
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] MajorVersion MinorVersion
My actual versioning system is itself only at 0.2. v0.1 was a sort of incremental numbering based on a 'yeh whatever' start version number. With 0.2 i have been trying to keep to 0.01 when i first push a design to github, remembering 'this is software source', and then going up, until i reach a first 'public release' that should get a 0.1. Then each time a release feels like a 'major revision' to me i go up a whole tenth. Not yet reached a 1.0 with this yet :) I'm hoping with 0.3 of my versioning system i will have found a good system and will stick to it . Khaled's approach seems good to me. Start with 0.0001. Think i'll implement that. -vernon On 23 Sep 2013, at 07:30, Eric Schrijver wrote: > But what I’m interested in is—what kind of versioning systems are people > using in the wild?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
This firefox add-on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/files/browse/87807/file/chrome/content/fontface.js#top pretty much does the job, except it does not support downloading fonts from data urls, because "Font providers like Typekit use data urls to obfuscate copyrighted fonts. " It would seem to be a fairly mundane matter to add that feature to this add-on. The original author no longer maintains the add-on but the code is free under the firefox license thingy. The result would be that a Firefox user can select text on any web page, right click to download the font used to set that text, as a woff file. This would allow webfont service providers a much more streamlined and efficient way to distribute their free fonts as downloadable font files, for users to use in print works too. No need for 'download' links, etc etc, to be built & maintained on the server side :) Yay!! win-win :) -vernon On 7 Jun 2013, at 15:02, Vernon Adams wrote: >>> >>> Hence why i would like to see a web tool that easilly identifies a >>> woff font in a web page, extracts the font from the browser cache, >>> converts it to OTF or TTF and downloads it for any other use. >> >> If you want to fund it, I can find a developer. > > Yes maybe, and i have asked around a little already. It seems more than > worthwhile.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 7 Jun 2013, at 12:21, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 7 June 2013 13:45, Vernon Adams wrote: >> >> to convert from my sources to a woff, is a clear 'modification', i would say. > > The OFL FAQ and I both disagree with this; WOFF is simply compression, > not modification, and it guarantees 100% that the data you put into > the compression process will be the data you get out. EOT and WOFF2 > can rearrange the data so it won't checksum the same, but it will be > the same for all practical purposes. The tools used to make > WOFF/EOT/WOFF2 may however make it very convenient to modify the fonts > (subsetting, etc) before compression is applied. > >> The main reason i would say it is a major modification, is because my OFL >> fonts >> have been designed and published to be used for web, print, whatever. > > Compressing them won't change that. > >> A woff is a totally useless format for quite a few end user situations. > > ? :) So you're saying i should see the woff conversion as similar to distributing a font as a gzip or tar? and a user wouldnt expect to be able to use a gzipped font for all occasions (but they could for some), but it can be easilly enough decompressed for other uses? I guess i could buy that rationale :) > > Its trivial to decompress WOFF, and there are a handful of independent > implementaitons. Yes i will look for a good libre tool for that. > >> Hence why i would like to see a web tool that easilly identifies a >> woff font in a web page, extracts the font from the browser cache, >> converts it to OTF or TTF and downloads it for any other use. > > If you want to fund it, I can find a developer. Yes maybe, and i have asked around a little already. It seems more than worthwhile. -v
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
Yes. To me it is clearly distribution, because, as Victor pointed out, with the OFL 'embedding' and 'distribution' are mutually exclusive. So, any form of distribution (however 'on the edge' of embedding it may be) makes it wholly 'distribution'. In the case of Adobe (i've not checked other services) the only thing they are distributing is WOFF files. Now, in the example of my fonts, i have never published any woff versions of my fonts, so to convert from my sources to a woff, is a clear 'modification', i would say. The main reason i would say it is a major modification, is because my OFL fonts have been designed and published to be used for web, print, whatever. A woff is a totally useless format for quite a few end user situations. Hence why i would like to see a web tool that easilly identifies a woff font in a web page, extracts the font from the browser cache, converts it to OTF or TTF and downloads it for any other use. -vern On 7 Jun 2013, at 10:22, Dave Crossland wrote: > It might _appear_ to be embedding at first glance, but if you look at > the situation carefully, you will see that it is in fact distribution.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 7 Jun 2013, at 05:46, Victor Gaultney wrote: > The terms 'embedding' and 'distribution' have very specific meanings in the > OFL context, and are mutually exclusive. Here is a slightly expand form of > what is said in the FAQ: > > Embedding = inclusion of font data solely for purposes of viewing that one > enclosing document, and in a way that makes extraction difficult or clearly > discouraged. > > Distribution= inclusion of font data with the intention of allowing it to be > used for other docs, or in a way that makes extraction and redistribution > easy. > This i what i pointed at earlier. The OFL defines a font's usage as either 'embedding' or 'distribution'. According to the OFL, a font can't be treated as both. But i think the biggest usage of OFL'd fonts today (base 64 encoded woff files served from a central server to users browsers) seems to fall into both :) This is what is causing any problems or confusion. These webfonts fit the 'embedding' definition because it can be argued that they are included for sole purpose of typesetting the web page they are sent to the browser with. Also their 'extraction' could be seen as 'difficult' (compared to 'click here to download your free-to-use OTF / TTF"), and as i have pointed out their distribution system has been designed to make extraction (of proprietary fonts) 'not easy'. But… it can also be argued that the fonts are 'distributions', because actual font files can be practically pulled from the browser cache, and used as is, or converted to another format for printing with etc etc. -vern
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 6 Jun 2013, at 21:20, rfink0...@gmail.com wrote: > Lastly - Vernon, I'm on your side, as far as your aims are concerned. > Totally. So don't get me wrong. But as somebody else wrote somewhere on this > thread or one closely associated with this topic: where in the license does > it say you've got to keep a pristine copy of the font up on a server > somewhere available for download? It doesn't. But i think it's should be assumed the following basic of Free Software; if someone modifies Free Software then their modifications also are Free Software. To modify Free Software, but then to close your modifications off (even partly) is usually a breach of the Free Software community 'values', and maybe even sometimes a breach of a license. These redistributions of 'modified' Free web fonts via major foundry's font servers are maybe more 'on the edge' of value breaches, rather than license breaches, the technical details of which have some "if's and but's". Personally, i want to stay pragmatic about it all. Also i sense that there can be some sort of 'parasite / host' relationship that may be more interesting that anything else. These big web servers are potentially simply big hosts. Ideally i would like these hosts to hold downloadable files, but, in any case the current free serving off WOFFs, that can also be grabbed, is better than nothing. Something to work with, at least. I think the idea of browsers being able to 1-click download WOFFs from web pages, with conversion back to an OTF, post download, would be an awesome thing. I'd love to see such a tool appear in the next months. One aspect of the Adobe Edge service i still haven't worked out; and that is what files do they use as the 'source' of the OFL's files they are serving? The WOFF files that land in my browser cache, are from postscript outlines i assume. I guess they were not converted from Truetype outlines. I haven't had a good look, though i am curious. Any ideas? > And I'm saying - how many caveats are there going to be? What's the goal > here? Seems to me, that after three years or so of this, web fonts are still > being strangled by their own "rules". And what's going to happen when the > fonts need to install as part of an ebook? It goes from bad to worse. There are as many caveats as each designer / copyright holder want to create, i guess. I have few caveats. Others have more, and others less. I'm not sure i agree that webfonts are being strangled at all. Why do you say that? Seems to me they keep spreading and spreading. Seems to be no antidote. > > Maybe specifics would help. Would you mind answering this: Do you consider > the fonts you create to be your intellectual property? If so, what rights do > you want to hand over to users via the license? > And one more question: "enforcement" unfortunately has bad connotations. How > would you like to see "compliance" handled? > The question you should ask is "How much do you value your intellectual property?" Depends. Some fonts i value more than others, but ultimately i am not over precious about them. They are designed to be free (as in bird, and freedom), so i guess i most value the freedom aspect of their intellectual property value. I think 'enforcement' and 'compliance' would only become an issue if free fonts software started showing up in proprietary fonts, tbh. -vern
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:43, Dave Crossland wrote: > http://code.google.com/p/web-font-downloader/ awaits hurry up then
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:23, Dave Crossland wrote: >> Perhaps some browser developers would be interested in this? > > Make an extension. = ask others to make an extension
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
Well, apart from feeling i might be a bit crazy for seeing this situation in the way i see it :) i do think it's worth thinking about aspects of it that are 'out there' (Victor's words), because chances are they may be the mundane of tomorrow. IMO at the moment we are still seeing the 'distribution' of Libre fonts in similar modes to modes we are used to seeing proprietary fonts distributed by; canonical, centralised, and ultimately controlled from a 'top down' approach. The 'top' being the designer, or publisher, or foundry. Proprietary fonts have to go these routes for obvious reasons. Libre fonts do not have to at all, their free-ness makes them inherently viral objects, if you want them to be. I suspect that more viral approaches to distribution may emerge, because they are becoming possible and practical. For example, the situation of 'pulling' fonts out of the browser cache; that action is a legacy from the slightly fudgy situation where the type industry wanted the web market, but didn't want to give fonts away. As a designer of free fonts, i'm stuck with that fudge, despite the fact that the technology actually presents a much more direct way to distribute fonts to users. E.g. instead of users having to jump hurdles to get a fairly useless WOFF file of my fonts, i would want that a user could a Free font used on any webpage and be able to 1-click to download that font (intact) and so be able to then use it for web, print, whatever. IMO that's how free fonts could be utilised and distributed. It's pretty much exactly what Nathan describes. Select text, right click… "save font as…" :) Perhaps some browser developers would be interested in this? The idea that was floated a few years back of a 'permissions table' for (proprietary) webfonts, has allways interested me. It's maybe a shame it was never adopted, as it's a neat idea for how a font can carry all the information it needs to denote it's 'freedom' (or lack of it). Another aspect that may effect webfonts is the 'web DRM' standards that are on the table with the W3C. It would be interesting if font file formats developed to carry 'freedom' information in a DRM protected web. -vernon On 6 Jun 2013, at 11:01, Nathan Willis wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Vernon Adams wrote: > Yep. > > I'll use Coda served from Adobe's Edge webfonts service as my example, from > https://edgewebfonts.adobe.com/fonts#/?nameFilter=coda&collection=coda > > So from e.g. that page, i can obtain the Coda fonts by using the Developer > tools of my web broswer. Not sure if this works for all browsers, but i'm > using Chrome so it does… > > The page's Resources are exposed in the Developer tools and i can see the > url of the Coda Regular font, it is; > data:font/opentype;base64, encodingt> > > That link kicks Chrome into downloading a single file called 'download' to my > local machine. > I then add the file extension '.woff' to that file, to create > 'download.woff'. It's a base64 encoded woff font file. > > I can then use this font file, or… i guess i can use it?… can i share it? > What should i call it? can i use it on my own server within a css @font-face > rule? > I would like to print with it too… but it's a WOFF file, so more practical if > i convert it… can i convert it into an opentype (OTF) file format? and print > with it? Can i share that OTF? What can i call it? > > It sounds like what you're fundamentally interested in here is a browser > feature; akin to the manner in which (most?) browsers offer a "View Image" / > "Copy Image Location" / "Save Image As" option in the right-click menu. > Obviously they don't *have* to do that; that's their choice. And I can see > how it would be extremely helpful if you visit a page and notice something > interesting about the fonts -- particularly if you like one but think you > might want to modify it. That's a lot more steps than is required to save > and edit an image file, and image files are subject to just as much creator > copyright protection as fonts. > > I'm not sure how much could be done in the font *file* itself to simplify > that situation if the browser exposes no convenient options to the user, > though. You can already provide URLs to the user in metadata; it's just not > accessible, right? > > So I guess I'm asking whether the answer isn't to open feature requests in > Firefox & Chromium? > > Nate > > > -- > nathan.p.willis > nwil...@glyphography.com > identi.ca/n8
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
Yep. I'll use Coda served from Adobe's Edge webfonts service as my example, from https://edgewebfonts.adobe.com/fonts#/?nameFilter=coda&collection=coda So from e.g. that page, i can obtain the Coda fonts by using the Developer tools of my web broswer. Not sure if this works for all browsers, but i'm using Chrome so it does… The page's Resources are exposed in the Developer tools and i can see the url of the Coda Regular font, it is; data:font/opentype;base64, That link kicks Chrome into downloading a single file called 'download' to my local machine. I then add the file extension '.woff' to that file, to create 'download.woff'. It's a base64 encoded woff font file. I can then use this font file, or… i guess i can use it?… can i share it? What should i call it? can i use it on my own server within a css @font-face rule? I would like to print with it too… but it's a WOFF file, so more practical if i convert it… can i convert it into an opentype (OTF) file format? and print with it? Can i share that OTF? What can i call it? I can understand why the situation is like this; Adobe only really want users of their service to use Coda as a 'webfont', they don't want to distribute it as e.g. an OTF font that can be used for printing, or as a TTF that can be used to build a @font-face kit. There is clearly NO WAY they are going to inform users to grab the font in the way i have, because then users will likely grab all the proprietary font in the same way. Remember the Adobe Typekit distribution system is designed to hinder and kerb the free distribution of proprietary font files. Libre fonts have just been slotted into the same system. So… assuming as a user i have the resources and knowledge … i can use software to look at the metadata of the woff file. I'll use FontForge. Copyright is me :) RFN's are stated etc etc. But no mention of OFL, instead the license string is http://typekit.com/eulas/ This takes me to the 'EULA' for Coda, and there is the OFL for Coda. How could this situation be improved? Adobe could also allow the fonts to be downloaded as OTFs or TTFs. I doubt that will happen, and it's not my place to think it should. As i've said in earlier posts, i think the solution lies more in the hands of font designers, to distribute font files that can carry enough standalone info to make them independent from other sources of usage & licensing info as possible. I should not rely on re-distributors to get all the font info in order, it should be in the font object itself. This would do 2 things; (1) Give enough information to make it clear that it's Free Software, (2) If that info is removed, then the remover has removed the most crucial flag to denoting the Free-ness of the font, which would be clearly naughty. -vernon On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:38, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 5 June 2013 15:23, Vernon Adams wrote: >> i feel that the file coming to users from Typekit etc could be a bit more >> 'informational'. > > Can you be more concrete and specific?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 5 Jun 2013, at 11:50, Victor Gaultney wrote: >> >> from the OFL definition, the uses of OFL fonts by Adobe, Monotype, etc IS >> 'embedding'... > > Uh - not at all. "…we mean inclusion of the font in a document or file…" The > web fonts paper, again, talks all about this. :-) Yes. I'm not really interested if it is or isn't embedding. Some people claim it is, some point out that it isn't. It clearly isn't in my view. But, I think that's the wrong question anyway :-) I'm just trying to get at the point that (as the FAQ says) - "Any other means of delivering a font to another person is considered 'distribution" Correct? So... that single file that is pulled into your browser cache from typekit etc is a distribution of an OFL font. It can't be not-embedded and not-a-distribution; under the terms of the OFL it has to be one or the other. So it's a distribution. My point is that billions of OFL fonts are being distributed like this every week, and i am not sure that they are as well marked as Free fonts as they could be. They often lack clear info of what they are. If i look at the info in the 'font files' that Typekit etc sends to my browser, compared to the info in the files in my master git repo, i feel that the file coming to users from Typekit etc could be a bit more 'informational'. I would prefer a Libre font model where the font itself (in whatever form) integrates just enough info that it can be clearly deemed a "Free Font", not reliant on checking master repos, or bundled text files etc etc. Does this sound totally crazy? :) It seems very clear to me, but apparently not to anyone else! :) > >> And then, all those fonts lying in web browser caches? are they >> distributions? No? Yes?… > > Web browser caches as a distribution model seems a bit out there. Yes in terms of adoption and usage numbers, they are the distribution model way out there, leading the pack :) thanks for all your time and effort on this too. -vernon
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 5 Jun 2013, at 09:59, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 5 June 2013 12:18, Vernon Adams wrote: >> I see an opportunity to create more distribution points, and have as many >> distributions as possible acting as primary distribution points :) > > I do not. You do. You just don't realise it yet ;) >> > > This is incredibly vague. What specifically do you mean by 'more mobile'? > By 'more mobile' i mean more able to move around freely, subject to fewer licensing terms than they are now, able to be used freely and easily without breakage (license-wise or type-wise). -v
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 5 Jun 2013, at 09:17, Victor Gaultney wrote: >> >> And the OFL definition of 'embedding' is … ? > > From the FAQ: > > Question: 1.11 What do you mean by 'embedding'? How does that differ from > other means of distribution? > > Answer: By 'embedding' we mean inclusion of the font in a document or file in > a way that makes extraction (and redistribution) difficult or clearly > discouraged. In many cases the names of embedded fonts might also not be > obvious to those reading the document, the font data format might be altered, > and only a subset of the font - only the glyphs required for the text - might > be included. Any other means of delivering a font to another person is > considered 'distribution', and needs to be accompanied by any copyright > notices and licensing information available in OFL.txt. > Thank Victor, Yes, i knew the definition :) and my point is how does that OFL definition of 'embedding' tally with the situation of how fonts are being distributed via 'embedding' in the real world? and will it likely tally with the situation in say 2 years? because; from the OFL definition, the uses of OFL fonts by Adobe, Monotype, etc IS 'embedding', and therefore (according to the FAQ) not 'distribution'. The fact that the OFL clearly attempts to separate 'distribution' from 'embedding' is a major note imo too. From the OFL FAQ embedding an OFL font from Typekit in a web page is a 'non-distribution'. 3-4 years ago i think we may have all simply shrugged at that. Now though it strikes me as very noteworthy; it means that the huge bulk of OFL fonts in use right now is 'non-distribution' use. So OFL fonts are being used en masse, as highly popular web objects 'embedded' in hundreds of millions of web pages a week, but their licensing 'kind of' considers all that usage as 'non-distribution'. And then, all those fonts lying in web browser caches? are they distributions? No? Yes? but only when someone takes the font and tweaks it back into a fully functioning .woff file? As a designer (who wants their fonts to be as free as possible) i see that the present situation needs some positive patching. I ideally want the freedom of my fonts protected under a license, where the license is as clear, simple and effective as possible, whichever way that font has been used. I see the definition of 'embedding' versus 'distribution' as not helpful. To me technology has clearly made embedding a distribution. I would like to think of the best way that my fonts can come out of any embedding process with it's licensing info and permissions clear, simple and intact, with no need to track down text files 'back at base' etc. What might be the best way to do that? again; i'm thinking, not arguing :) vernon
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 5 Jun 2013, at 08:50, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 5 June 2013 10:28, Vernon Adams wrote: >>> I'm not sure you can, the subsetting is done on the server… >> >> erm.. so… i was right then :) it sucks as a way of enabling fonts as "free >> and easy to obtain and use" ;p > > Because it isn't the primary distribution point. The files are subsets > of the fonts from the primary distribution point, and have no > improvements. I don't see a problem here. I don't see a problem either. I see an opportunity to create more distribution points, and have as many distributions as possible acting as primary distribution points :) Relying on some central, canonical, distro point to be the gatekeeper of licensing info strikes me as a weakness. Far better imo that as many of the distribution points as possible are a primary source of the licensing info. > >> But anyway, the important thing is that this IS how libre fonts are being >> distributed more and more. > > I don't see this as important. The OFL-connected issues we have been discussing, are a result of a gap between technology (how fonts are being used) and the licensing model (how fonts are protected). That gap will get bigger; i suspect we will see fonts needing to become even more mobile and 'free-er' and that will stretch the limits of the current libre licensing model even more. IMO making the licensing more integral to the font object, and more simple, and more permissive, is the way forward. A font object that has a trail of docs left 'back at base', a trademark filed here, with the whiff of a law suit in the wings, and limits on 'embedding types a, b , x and z' is not going to be particularly 'free'. ps; i'm thinking, not arguing :) -vern
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
And the OFL definition of 'embedding' is … ? and does that definition tally with the situation of how fonts are being distributed via 'embedding' in the real world? and will it likely tally with the situation in say 2 years? -vern On 5 Jun 2013, at 08:46, Dave Crossland wrote: > The OFL treats embedding VERY differently to distribution.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 5 Jun 2013, at 06:06, Khaled Hosny wrote: > I personally see the mere use of @font-face as a form of embedding not > distribution I think it's worth understanding that any use of a Libre font file in the 'public space' is a 'distribution'. That seems to me to be at the heart of the Libre paradigm and the rationale of the OFL. Using Libre fonts within css @font-face rules is a good example. When a font is used like this, it becomes 'open' to be fairly easily and directly downloaded, and used. This is exactly why the type industry got so alarmed by @font-face 3-4 years ago. Bad for proprietary font distribution. Good for Libre font distribution. I would say that embedding is also a 'distribution' too, as more and more, embedded objects are becoming routinely more open to extraction. -v
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 5 Jun 2013, at 05:38, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 4 June 2013 12:54, Vernon Adams wrote: >> (a) webfonts, used by css linkage etc and (b) base64 encoded Woff files >> placed in the users browser cache. >> (a) works well. (b) really sucks. takes extra effort and know-how to pull > > Err no, not really? > > You can find the data by clicking in a WebKit browser: Develop, Show > Web Inspector, Resources, click a font, see the base64 data, copy it, > paste it into http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp > and the browser downloads a file. > > Its also trivial to do it from the command line. > http://askubuntu.com/questions/178521/how-can-i-decode-a-base64-string-from-the-command-line > >> a full, non-subsetted font, > > I'm not sure you can, the subsetting is done on the server… erm.. so… i was right then :) it sucks as a way of enabling fonts as "free and easy to obtain and use" ;p But anyway, the important thing is that this IS how libre fonts are being distributed more and more. > >> get at that pulled base64'd font, and eventually, be able to use it for e.g. >> a print project. >> >> So my point is with (b). I would want my fonts to come out the other end of >> (b) still fully marked it as a Free font, > > They do > >> and not as a font that is some sort of orphan. If OFL fonts are going to be >> increasingly >> distributed in this way, i think we have to rely more on standalone font >> files and much >> less on license text files, font log text files, etc. > > The requirements are the same if the font is distributed as a > standalone file or as a collection of font files and text files. I think i'm being understood a little :) My point is only this; if we are moving more into libre fonts being distributed via web browser caches and / or embedding (either real or 'faux'), then i think it's worth looking at how to make the standalone font binary object do all the carrying of licensing info & permissions that is needed. And, what could that look like? Obviously we don't want long texts added to metadata, so what would be some 'good ideas'? -v
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Treatment of the OFL in the wild
I'm sure i saw an in-house blog post about the collaboration work with Omnibus on Rosario too. Worth looking for again. -v On 4 Jun 2013, at 19:02, Pablo Impallari wrote: > Good News: > Pablo Cosgaya asked Typekit to correct the Rosario page, and they have made > the changes accordingly. > Now Omnibus Type is properly credited: https://typekit.com/fonts/rosario > +1 to Adobe/Typekit for fixing the meta-data.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Treatment of the OFL in the wild
Dave - Haha, but not sure if you are joking or not :) @Rich - I know what you mean, but i see things more round the another way. I'm more interested in getting more and more freely available fonts into the hands of more users, rather than creating fonts that are more legal object than typographic object. Some large foundries have started distributing Free fonts. It's a good start, but I wish it was being done in a way that made the fonts even more free. I'm more interested in how fonts can be designed that can be as free as possible, even when they are simply embedded or only distributed as chopped up woff files. -v On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:50, Dave Crossland wrote: > I believe these lawsuits are currently the most profitable business > model for font copyright holders.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 4 Jun 2013, at 09:27, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 4 June 2013 12:05, Vernon Adams wrote: >> >> My point is not really to do with licensing (i know fonts can be embedded >> under the OFL). But, i'm aware that embedding has not really been seen as a >> 'best practise' way of distributing libre fonts. When i say distributing, i >> mean *spreading them around*, not simply *allowing them to be used*. > > By definition embedding is the opposite of spreading them around. Yes. So how best could embedding also become a better way of spreading them around? You are probably mostly right in the replies below. However, the Edge etc services are 'distributing' fonts as (a) webfonts, used by css linkage etc and (b) base64 encoded Woff files placed in the users browser cache. (a) works well. (b) really sucks. takes extra effort and know-how to pull a full, non-subsetted font, get at that pulled base64'd font, and eventually, be able to use it for e.g. a print project. So my point is with (b). I would want my fonts to come out the other end of (b) still fully marked it as a Free font, and not as a font that is some sort of orphan. If OFL fonts are going to be increasingly distributed in this way, i think we have to rely more on standalone font files and much less on license text files, font log text files, etc. -v > >> Now, i know some designers will say that the 'most proper' way to distribute >> libre >> fonts is as full-on source package, and then there is the Google webfont >> approach; binaries up front, git repos of source files at the back. etc etc. > > I think source is about access, not mandatory provision - and access > to improvements so they can be integrated upstream. > >> What i'm suggesting, may be seen as "lowering the bar" :) but i'm interested >> in ideas turn the sort of situation some of us have with Adobe, font >> squirrel, >> etc, on it's head; instead of seeing these situations as problems (because >> these services are not making freely available binary files, or source >> files), > > I see no problem with them - I see a problem with the RFN preventing > the wide use of RFNd fonts. > > They are making freely available binary files for all fonts under the > OFL, because the OFL requires that all copies be under the OFL. > > They don't provide source files, but their changes don't improve the > font, so its not important. > >> i wonder if it's possible to see advantages instead. One advantage i see is >> that a font served as a single font object (and not a bundle of license >> texts, >> source files etc) is way more mobile, free (as in bird), and able to spread >> virally. It may be simple a case of adding licensing info with font metadata, >> and not relying on bundles text files. > > This adds to filesize and so I want to strip it from the web fonts. > >> ps - someone should build a web service, that pulls the obfuscated >> OFL's fonts from the Edge / Typekit etc servers, parses them, prepares >> them, and then builds them back into a OTF, TTF, and a @font-face >> kit for easy download. Would be cool ;) > > How are they obfuscated? > > I see no value in this; the changes Typekit makes that are meaningful > (as we've seen with Rosario) are done in collaboration with the > designers, and the changes FontSquirrel make are available to anyone > in their kit builder.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
Sorry. I need to clarify where i was going with this :) My point is not really to do with licensing (i know fonts can be embedded under the OFL). But, i'm aware that embedding has not really been seen as a 'best practise' way of distributing libre fonts. When i say distributing, i mean *spreading them around*, not simply *allowing them to be used*. Now, i know some designers will say that the 'most proper' way to distribute libre fonts is as full-on source package, and then there is the Google webfont approach; binaries up front, git repos of source files at the back. etc etc. What i'm suggesting, may be seen as "lowering the bar" :) but i'm interested in ideas turn the sort of situation some of us have with Adobe, font squirrel, etc, on it's head; instead of seeing these situations as problems (because these services are not making freely available binary files, or source files), i wonder if it's possible to see advantages instead. One advantage i see is that a font served as a single font object (and not a bundle of license texts, source files etc) is way more mobile, free (as in bird), and able to spread virally. It may be simple a case of adding licensing info with font metadata, and not relying on bundles text files. ps - someone should build a web service, that pulls the obfuscated OFL's fonts from the Edge / Typekit etc servers, parses them, prepares them, and then builds them back into a OTF, TTF, and a @font-face kit for easy download. Would be cool ;) -v On 4 Jun 2013, at 08:19, Dave Crossland wrote: > Embedding fonts you can't extract easily is ok too. The point here is that > Web fonts are never embedding, they are always separate resources that are > linked to documents. > > On Jun 4, 2013 11:13 AM, "Vernon Adams" wrote: > Are we saying that embedding a font that a user can extract, is a perfectly > acceptable (i.e. FLOSS-like) way of distributing a libre font? > I like the idea of that, but i'm trying to think of what weaknesses in that > method, and what could be ways to enable embedding as a means of distribution > whilst also protecting the freedom of the font? > > -vern > > > > > On 4 Jun 2013, at 08:05, Dave Crossland wrote: > > > Extracting the fonts is just as easy > > > > On Jun 4, 2013 4:59 AM, "Victor Gaultney" wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2013, at 23:47, Khaled Hosny wrote: > > > >> You can embed a webfont as base64 encoded string inside the HTML file. > > > > Good point, Khaled. That does sound like traditional embedding. The key > > differences from standard web fonts use are that: > > > > - The font is delivered as part of the HTML file, not a separate resource > > - The font is provided by the same server as the rest of the doc > > - The font is used for only one document > > - The font is always present, even if the doc is viewed offline > > > > I'm not sure whether an embedded web font would be any more difficult to > > extract than normal web fonts. Anyone have thoughts on this? > > > > These differences are significant. Nicolas has been out of the office for a > > couple of weeks. When he gets back in the office I'll talk with him about > > adjusting the FAQ and web fonts paper to address fonts delivered within the > > HTML file. > > > >> Even the common case of just linking to the file is not much different > >> from bundling the font in the zip container of ODT or DOCX. > > > > I think it is. In a zip the fonts travel with the doc and they cannot be > > used by other docs unless you extract them. > > > > V >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
Are we saying that embedding a font that a user can extract, is a perfectly acceptable (i.e. FLOSS-like) way of distributing a libre font? I like the idea of that, but i'm trying to think of what weaknesses in that method, and what could be ways to enable embedding as a means of distribution whilst also protecting the freedom of the font? -vern On 4 Jun 2013, at 08:05, Dave Crossland wrote: > Extracting the fonts is just as easy > > On Jun 4, 2013 4:59 AM, "Victor Gaultney" wrote: > On 3 Jun 2013, at 23:47, Khaled Hosny wrote: > >> You can embed a webfont as base64 encoded string inside the HTML file. > > Good point, Khaled. That does sound like traditional embedding. The key > differences from standard web fonts use are that: > > - The font is delivered as part of the HTML file, not a separate resource > - The font is provided by the same server as the rest of the doc > - The font is used for only one document > - The font is always present, even if the doc is viewed offline > > I'm not sure whether an embedded web font would be any more difficult to > extract than normal web fonts. Anyone have thoughts on this? > > These differences are significant. Nicolas has been out of the office for a > couple of weeks. When he gets back in the office I'll talk with him about > adjusting the FAQ and web fonts paper to address fonts delivered within the > HTML file. > >> Even the common case of just linking to the file is not much different >> from bundling the font in the zip container of ODT or DOCX. > > I think it is. In a zip the fonts travel with the doc and they cannot be used > by other docs unless you extract them. > > V
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Fwd: [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
I have now contacted font pro.com about this. They promise to remedy the situation. The download packages, contain no OFL license. -v On 3 Jun 2013, at 12:27, Barry Schwartz wrote: > IMO FontPro should be more explicit about licenses, because they offer > downloads. I haven’t downloaded a package to see what comes with it.
[OpenFontLibrary] Fwd: [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild
Begin forwarded message: > From: vernon adams > Subject: [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild > Date: 2 June 2013 18:47:57 PDT > To: "googlefontdirectory-disc...@googlegroups.com" > , Open Font Library > > Reply-To: googlefontdirectory-disc...@googlegroups.com > > This is a follow on to the recent thread "OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts > paper" that Victor Gaultney started. > > The OFL faq update draft and the way a few large foundries have started > serving OFL'd webfonts brought to my attention the way OFL'd fonts were being > used out there in the wild. Alongside the big foundries serving OFL'd fonts > as webfonts, there are also now a few sites cataloguing fonts, and then > making them available for download as font files, or as @font-face 'kits'. > E.g. http://fontpro.com/ > I think this is all 'great', but these sites are also often not distributing > the OFL along with the distributed fonts. Also of course, these sites don't > make available source files, and are often making modifications to metadata > but then not following the OFL on distributing modified fonts. > > So i'm interested how other designers of OFL'd fonts see this, or how people > in the wider FLOSS community see this situation? Does anyone not care? Anyone > really unhappy about it? Some times i shrug and think 'so what?', but then i > am also very aware that ignoring these breaches 'en masse' does perhaps > undermine the integrity of the OFL itself. It's like we need a Libre Font > Union or something ;) > > -vernon > > > -- > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Font Directory Discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
I can understand this, except for one thing; Surely it would not be 'diluting' the OFL to reshape it to bring more clarity to the licensing of this whole 'minor modification' space that webfont services are opening up? Imo the OFL needs to be ever so slightly tweaked, but only to better protect the freedom of OFL'd fonts. That's not a dilution, that's a re-concentration. On the other hand, expecting designers to rely on an external triggers such as 'trademarks' to plug this issue, does seem to dilute the license. -vernon On 29 May 2013, at 05:05, Victor Gaultney wrote: >>> >>> >>> Perhaps the authors of the OFL could create such a text? >> >> I think Victor has been quite clear that he's not at all interested in >> diluting the OFL model like this, > > Yes - for the reasons Dave mentions, and the basic conceptual difficulty of > defining and evaluating what changes would be allowed.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
Not sure this is about RFN's, (except that within the situation permission to use the RFN was granted). I think this is more to do with the way that Adobe / Typekit have approached using the OFL'd fonts from Google Webfonts. -v On 28 May 2013, at 15:12, Pablo Impallari wrote: > A recent real-life example, the Rosario font by Omnibus-Type, was hand-hinted > by Adobe. > http://blogs.adobe.com/edgewebfonts/2013/05/23/adobe-contributes-improvements-to-open-source-font-family-rosario/ > http://googlewebfonts.blogspot.com.ar/2013/05/typekit-improves-rosario.html > That's great! (Pablo Cosgaya granted them permission to use the RFN's.) > > But... if you look at https://typekit.com/fonts/rosario or at the pages > having the license https://typekit.com/eulas/00014188 they > make NO MENTION of Omnibus-Type whatsoever. > > > > > > > > 2013/5/28 Dave Crossland > On 28 May 2013 23:48, Vernon Adams wrote: > > > > On 28 May 2013, at 14:39, Dave Crossland wrote: > > > >> I think Victor has been quite clear that he's not at all interested in > >> diluting the OFL model like this, and I would not like to see such > >> additional permissions to the OFL floating around because I know that > >> software corporation's legal departments (ie, HP) consider "license > >> plus additional permission notice" to be a wholly discrete, custom > >> copyright license which immediately rules it out of consideration for > >> their use because they have policies against license proliferation - > >> and for good reason, because such a bespoke license is untested and > >> carries a lot more legal risk. > > > > But Adobe seem more than able to handle this 'additional permission' right > > here and now. So i really can't imagine that if this 'additional > > permission' had already existed within (or alongside) the OFL, that Adobe > > would have said 'whoa guys, don't go near those OFL fonts!!'. Or would they? > > I know that anyone dealing with free software in software corporations > must get their legal departments to review a 'well known license + > other licensing text' license as a new, discrete license, and that > doing that can be (a) hard to get legal's attention in the first place > and (b) they are unlikely to be happy about it because license > profileration is bad. > > Maybe the legal department will wave it though. Maybe not. > > -- > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Font Directory Discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > -- > Un Abrazo > Pablo Impallari > > -- > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Font Directory Discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
On 28 May 2013, at 14:39, Dave Crossland wrote: > I think Victor has been quite clear that he's not at all interested in > diluting the OFL model like this, and I would not like to see such > additional permissions to the OFL floating around because I know that > software corporation's legal departments (ie, HP) consider "license > plus additional permission notice" to be a wholly discrete, custom > copyright license which immediately rules it out of consideration for > their use because they have policies against license proliferation - > and for good reason, because such a bespoke license is untested and > carries a lot more legal risk. But Adobe seem more than able to handle this 'additional permission' right here and now. So i really can't imagine that if this 'additional permission' had already existed within (or alongside) the OFL, that Adobe would have said 'whoa guys, don't go near those OFL fonts!!'. Or would they? -v
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
On 28 May 2013, at 02:24, Victor Gaultney wrote: > > On 27 May 2013, at 20:20, Vernon Adams wrote: > >> Is it not possible to include with a font, alongside the OFL, a 'pre-emptive >> permission' text that gives the user the go-ahead to use the RFN named in >> OFL text when a font has been modified by subsetting, re-hinting, etc, (i >> would have to think of the full list) ?? Seems a sensible solution to me. > > A copyright holder can certainly do something like that. The OFL doesn't > prohibit or discourage it. Such are really very separate permission > agreements. > > The main caveat is that the copyright holder should be sure they are very > clear about the specific types of modifications that are allowed (and not > allowed), and how they will be judged. IOW - I think that to give others a > blanket permission to change hinting is dangerous. It would be better to > allow hinting *if the results is generally more readable than the original*. > Otherwise you could have some service that cares for only one platform (that > ignores hints anyway) completely blow away your careful hinting and make your > font look terrible on Windows. Yes. I am suggesting that a generic text could be used that gives permission for those specific tasks that are commonly carried out when a font is used within a 'webfont server' service, and in a service such as Font Squirrel. Perhaps the authors of the OFL could create such a text? A sort of 'engineering exception' that can be voluntarilly used with the OFL? I really don't think 'standards' need to come into it, and they are too complicated to define. So according to Adobe, they do the following with the OFL'd fonts they use in their Edge service; • NAME table changes, including stripping of some attribution metadata and obfuscation of Name related entries. • Injecting a EULA link that lives at typekit.com, which displays the attribution metadata in an easily discoverable location. • format conversions: TTF (if the original is a CFF), SVG, SWF, WOFF, EOT. • subset creation: we currently offer our users two subsets: "default" (omits everything but Latin-1 plus some useful typographic marks) and "all" (includes everything the font has to offer). • miscellaneous updates related to web delivery, e.g., adjustments to CFF table's dictionary and index data in order to accommodate changes to data location within the table resulting from subsetting; vertical metrics adjustments for cross-browser consistency. I would say that these type of modifications are of a different nature to the type of modifications that i think the RFN is really aimed at. I see the RFN as a way of way to protect the 'stylistic aspect' of a font within the freedoms to modify and derivate. I read the RFN part of the OFL, not as a non-permission, but more as a way of imposing a 'common sense naming policy' when naming a derivative (and stylistically 'different') font from an already existing font. These engineering modifications do not effect the stylstic aspect of a font's visual appearance. -vernon > If you're going to give people wide and generous permissions with no > standards and no recourse, then why declare RFNs at all? > > V > > -- > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Font Directory Discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
Is it not possible to include with a font, alongside the OFL, a 'pre-emptive permission' text that gives the user the go-ahead to use the RFN named in OFL text when a font has been modified by subsetting, re-hinting, etc, (i would have to think of the full list) ?? Seems a sensible solution to me. -vernon On 24 May 2013, at 16:34, Victor Gaultney wrote: > On 24 May 2013, at 20:26, Thomas Phinney wrote: > >> I had assumed that including the RFN as part of the new name would be >> inappropriate. I suppose it could depend on whether the RFN was a trademark >> or not. The OFL is rather silent in this area. > > It's up to the copyright holder. Some would *love* to have the RFNs used in > derivative names by those they trust, and could even require that in their > permission agreement. Others want the opposite. The OFL does not speak to > this other than to say "if you modify this font, and the author has declared > an RFN, talk to them and work out together what is best for this specific > situation". > > Personally I love the idea of web fonts services (or frankly any service or > individual that modifies fonts to improve them) appending a recognisable > suffix to the name. This will still require separate permission if RFNs are > declared, but would go a long way to avoiding the confusion and frustration > that Adam has so colourfully described. It would also show a value-added > quality to the font. For example, say Paratype were to take our Gentium Plus > font and hint the Roman and Cyrillic to look awesome on Android. With our > permission they could call it 'Gentium Plus PT' and people would flock to > them to get their improved derivative (hey - we'd even use it!). The world > would also then think - h maybe we could hire them to do the same wonders > for ours, or to begin to trust 'PT' derivatives over others. > > Have a great weekend, > > V > > -- > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Font Directory Discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
On 23 May 2013, at 09:36, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 23 May 2013 02:43, Vernon Adams wrote: >> Not sure i understand 100% what you are saying :) >> specifically - "Free software can be charged for; otherwise it is not free >> as in >> freedom" >> is there a 'not' missing? > > No :) > > Free software can be sold. Freedom to redistribute for a fee is one of > the FSF core 4 freedoms. Yes i know. I couldn't get my head around the sentence structure (was a late night), plus, the OFL does disallow selling (under specific circumstances). Hence my confusion at what Barry was saying exactly. I see it now.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
I challenge Khaleds slightly 'straw man' comment :) Fonts are functional utilities that include 'art work'. The fact that the 'art work' of fonts may not be part of your interest in them, does not separate function and art in fonts. Ps - art work is functional utility too. It's a subset of the wider group of 'functional utilities'. Having said that i probably agree with the general idea though; art works should be no more or less protected than any other utility. On 23 May 2013, at 08:12, Khaled Hosny wrote: > The other half is the artistic integrity, > which I, obviously, find it all nonsense, fonts are functional utilities > not works of art, if I’m making a piece of art I’d use CC-By-NC-ND > or something like that.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
On 23 May 2013, at 08:10, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 23 May 2013 16:49, Vernon Adams wrote: >> The RFN part was probably not conceived as a copyleft >> component of the OFL. My point though, is that it can (under >> certain circumstances) also be used to preserve certain freedoms, >> more than it may ever restrict freedoms. > > What freedoms? I'm playing devils advocat here a lot :) but i feel that if i use a RFN with particular font families it gives me at least some added control against their (mis)use. On a personal note, i am uncomfortable with this; i dislike benevolent dictators as much as any type of dictator! > >> Do you see that the RFN can restricts a font's freedom? I'm >> interested to hear thoughts on that, as i'm still grappling with all this. > > Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. > > OFL-RFN fonts will simply not be used as widely on the web, because > the administrative burden of requesting, getting and tracking the > permission is too expensive - aside from any fees RFN holders might > try to charge. Yes, i certainly agree that a non-RFN'd font is more mobile and more flexible than a RFN'd font. I think designers will continue to have to make decisions about that, but then i see licensing as an integral part of a font's design anyway. The decisions you make about licensing will effect the mobility and use of the font, just as decisions on hinting, style, language support, etc will. -v
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
> > >> Reserving the name of the font, sets down a licensing condition >> that must be met. If that condition is not met then the license is breached. >> This is clear when dealing with 1 or 2 a large corporations (who may >> not be interested in preserving the font's freedom); as it gives 3 clear >> solutions for them to use their own modified version of a font; >> 1. Follow the OFL, use the font, change the font's name , and preserve >> the font's freedom. >> 2. Follow the OFL, use the font, get an agreement from me to use the >> RFN, and preserve the font's freedom. >> 3. Buy an embedding license from me, use the font non-free, and i >> preserve the font's freedom. > > 4. Don't use the fonts, because this is all too complicated. Yes, of course. "Don't use it" is assumed. I hope we would all prefer (4) to the font being used outside of the terms of the OFL? Ps is it *really* too complicated? > >> Now, with a few large corporations, this is highly manageable. > > I am not sure about that. Neither am i :) > >> But what happens with the mass of individual users and or small >> businesses, who maybe are also making modifications and serving the font ? >> Of course, i can simply decide to ignore the potential mass of >> individual breaches of non-changing of RFN's, and instead simply >> focus on the few 'major' breaches. Bit of a license fudge tho imo. > > Are you aware of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel ? Allowing > infringement can make it hard to complain about infringement. Yep > >> The argument i have with myself is; why do i feel the use of RFN's >> is not necessary when dealing with masses of individual users, >> but i feel i want it there in case of corporate users? >> It could be that i see that corporate users could easilly afford to >> buy (modestly priced) RFN agreements from me (if they need to >> use the fonts), thus 'giving something back' to the designer of >> the free fonts they are using, and funding future fonts. > > Asserting a trademark will carry the same requirement for corporate > users to license the trademark, and corporations already have well > established processes and budgets for licensing trademarks. OFL-RFN is > unusual, complex, and less likely to open that (meagre) jackpot. Yes. Like i said i'm still grappling and questioning myself about all this. > > Cheers > Dave
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
Erm… I think it, because i see clear evidence of it :) The RFN part was probably not conceived as a copyleft component of the OFL. My point though, is that it can (under certain circumstances) also be used to preserve certain freedoms, more than it may ever restrict freedoms. Do you see that the RFN can restricts a font's freedom? I'm interested to hear thoughts on that, as i'm still grappling with all this. -v On 23 May 2013, at 07:40, Khaled Hosny wrote: > Why do you think the font name is so important that to keep using it > those evil corporations will go out of their ways and sign deals with > you? (not to mention that it is the copyleft part of OFL that ensures > preservation of font freedom, not the RFN part).
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
The RFN can have an integral role in how a designer can preserve or enhance a certain type of freedom for a font. Or it simply restrict a font's freedom. I'm still arguing with myself about it :) Reserving the name of the font, sets down a licensing condition that must be met. If that condition is not met then the license is breached. This is clear when dealing with 1 or 2 a large corporations (who may not be interested in preserving the font's freedom); as it gives 3 clear solutions for them to use their own modified version of a font; 1. Follow the OFL, use the font, change the font's name , and preserve the font's freedom. 2. Follow the OFL, use the font, get an agreement from me to use the RFN, and preserve the font's freedom. 3. Buy an embedding license from me, use the font non-free, and i preserve the font's freedom. Now, with a few large corporations, this is highly manageable. But what happens with the mass of individual users and or small businesses, who maybe are also making modifications and serving the font ? Of course, i can simply decide to ignore the potential mass of individual breaches of non-changing of RFN's, and instead simply focus on the few 'major' breaches. Bit of a license fudge tho imo. The argument i have with myself is; why do i feel the use of RFN's is not necessary when dealing with masses of individual users, but i feel i want it there in case of corporate users? It could be that i see that corporate users could easilly afford to buy (modestly priced) RFN agreements from me (if they need to use the fonts), thus 'giving something back' to the designer of the free fonts they are using, and funding future fonts. -v On 23 May 2013, at 02:56, Pablo Impallari wrote: > > You know, we have the situation at present where at least one major corp is > > using my fonts in their services > > They are modifying and using the RFN without agreement from me. > > I have the same concerns as Vernon. > I'm getting the feeling that removing the RFM will allow Adobe and MT to do > whatever they want without agreement from us.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
Oh i see what you are saying now :) Yes of course. But the OFL prevents that particular freedom. I've never understood the rationale of that aspect of the OFL. Are you suggesting that restriction be removed from the OFL? -vern On 22 May 2013, at 17:15, Barry Schwartz wrote: > Free software can be charged for; otherwise it is not free as in > freedom. Once you pay for it, if it is copylefted, _then_ you can > redistribute, etc. > > So that’s not really a ‘situation’ unless they try to prevent the > second part.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
Barry, Not sure i understand 100% what you are saying :) specifically - "Free software can be charged for; otherwise it is not free as in freedom" is there a 'not' missing? -v On 22 May 2013, at 17:15, Barry Schwartz wrote: > Vernon Adams skribis: >> On 22 May 2013, at 13:45, Dave Crossland wrote: >> >>> I want to see libre fonts as widely used as possible while remaining libre. >> >> Agreed. However, it's the 'remaining libre' aspect that is my >> concern. You know, we have the situation at present where at least >> one major corp is using my fonts in their services and not even i am >> 'free' to get the modified fonts they are using :) I realise that is >> only indirectly an RFN issue but for me it flags up the need to look >> at the altering of licensing for Libre fonts with caution. > > Free software can be charged for; otherwise it is not free as in > freedom. Once you pay for it, if it is copylefted, _then_ you can > redistribute, etc. > > So that’s not really a ‘situation’ unless they try to prevent the > second part.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
I know. But. They are modifying and using the RFN without agreement from me. The 'freedom' (or not) of the OFL files they are using, is another issue. -vern On 22 May 2013, at 15:35, Khaled Hosny wrote: > It is not an RFN issue at all. The situation you describe is a violation > to any copyleft license (and OFL is a copyleft), with RFN or without.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
On 22 May 2013, at 13:45, Dave Crossland wrote: > I want to see libre fonts as widely used as possible while remaining libre. Agreed. However, it's the 'remaining libre' aspect that is my concern. You know, we have the situation at present where at least one major corp is using my fonts in their services and not even i am 'free' to get the modified fonts they are using :) I realise that is only indirectly an RFN issue but for me it flags up the need to look at the altering of licensing for Libre fonts with caution. -v
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
On 22 May 2013, at 13:15, Dave Crossland wrote: > Hi, > > On 22 May 2013 22:07, Vernon Adams wrote: >> >> Or, is there something i am not understanding in this? :) > > I think its unreasonable to expect every person publishing a blog who > makes their own subset to contact every copyright holder every time > they want to use a new OFL-RFN web font. > But isn't it exactly for that scenario that a designer will publish without an RFN? If a designer wishes to make a font available under the OFL without RFN-caused restrictions on subsetting etc then he/she will publish without an RFN. Not difficult :) Still not seeing why no RFN needs to be the default position. I'm very open to persuasive argument tho. > I think the desirable effect of RFNs can be preserved with a trademark > license, while alleviating the undesirable effect of prohibiting > subsetting and other trivial changes while retaining the name users > are familiar with. Any chance you can give an 'idiots guide' on how a trademark license would preserved some of the effects of the RFN? I'm unsure how and when this trademark license would work? What would it be aimed at preventing? cheers vernon > > I note that SIL itself also asserts both RFN and trademark rights on > its font names; so if you are keen to maximize control over your font > names, it may make sense to do what I'm suggestion in addition to > RFNs, rather than replacing them. > > Cheers > Dave > > -- > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Font Directory Discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
I am starting to prefer that the default position of RFN's in the OFL should be preserved as it is now. Is the other option, to make the default 'no RFN'? IMO the default of the RFN keeps a 'positive balance' in the court of the original designer. Remember there is allways the choice of specifically not using an RFN. In the event of another party wishing to retain the RFN after modifications have been made, the simple solution is for that party to obtain an agreement with the copyright holder of the font to retain the RFN. Or, is there something i am not understanding in this? :) -vernon On 20 May 2013, at 08:00, Victor Gaultney wrote: > Dear Google Fonts folks, > > Nicolas Spalinger and I, the maintainers of the SIL Open Font License, have > posted a draft of an update to the OFL-FAQ (1.1-update3-draft). Although > there are many small clarifications and refinements from version 1.1-update2, > the main addition is a greatly expanded section related to web fonts. There > is also a related discussion paper on Web Fonts and Reserved Font Names that > deals with those issues in even more detail. Comments and feedback are > welcome. > > http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web_11update3draft > http://scripts.sil.org/OFL_web_fonts_and_RFNs > > We hope this helps to bring clarity to some of the many difficult issues > related to web fonts and Reserved Font Names. > > Thanks, > > Victor Gaultney > > -- > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Font Directory Discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: [ft-devel] new CFF engine
Thomas (or others), Could you recommned a few opentype fonts, with known good industry standard ps hints, that i could use for control tests of this new engine versus truetype on Freetype? thanks -v On 1 May 2013, at 18:03, Thomas Phinney wrote: > Somebody with way more free time than me could do some tests of autohinted > TTF and autohinted CFF under the latest FreeType. My suspicion is that on > average the autohinted CFF will hold up better down to smaller sizes and look > at least as good if not better overall.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: [ft-devel] new CFF engine
I might well do a little of that, not that i have any free time :) …but… I'm very curious to see how desktop UI fonts render under this new freetype CFF autohinter. One thing i have noticed when testing UI fonts on android and Chrome (both use a tweaked freetype) is that unhinted truetype fonts render better than ttfautohinted or manual hinted fonts. The freetype bytecode interpreter on those OS's (especially on a hi res screen) seems to result in too harsh rendering with hinted truetype fonts. I'm curious if the new CFF interpreter will bring opentype fonts to the first choice as a UI font. -v On 1 May 2013, at 18:05, Thomas Phinney wrote: > Somebody with way more free time than me could do some tests of autohinted > TTF and autohinted CFF under the latest FreeType.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: [ft-devel] new CFF engine
So (their) fonts would look better rendered on screens? On 1 May 2013, at 16:44, Claus Eggers Sørensen wrote: > Great, but why was this work done?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] LGM 2013 and libre typography
yep. I simply removed the parenthese from around the url links, so the links worked. Will add some proper comments later :) On 16 Apr 2013, at 02:38, Raphaël Bastide wrote: > Hello, > > Here is a draft for a summary concerning the emerging projects around Libre > typography. As this is an open text, feel free to correct and complete it. > This text could be used as LGM report as well. > > http://titanpad.com/lgm13-typography > > Cheers, > > Raphaël Bastide > raphaelbastide.com
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] The future of OFLB development
I can see that is an issue :-) but then you are looking only for future developments that do not generate serious bandwidth. I wonder what sort of bandwidth a full on oflb font server could generate? Dave Crossland wrote: >On 25 December 2012 21:11, vernon adams wrote: >> I have been thinking for a while (have i not mentioned it?) That I thought >> oflb should have a bone fide web font server, where web authors can serve >> the fonts with a single line in the head tag a la GWF. > >I'm not sure this is very valuable. OFLB offers this today but without >the full set of formats, its not so much use. Also I'm not totally >sure our gratis hosting provider would want to foot a massive bill...
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] The future of OFLB development
I have been thinking for a while (have i not mentioned it?) That I thought oflb should have a bone fide web font server, where web authors can serve the fonts with a single line in the head tag a la GWF. -v Dave Crossland wrote: >On 25 December 2012 16:09, Alexandre Prokoudine > wrote: >> >>> I'd start with a better question: what place in the modern ecosystem >>> should OFLB be aiming at? >>> >>> When we started it, there was no TypeKit, no GFS, no half a dozen >>> other web fonts foundries. >>> >>> What makes OFLB special today, apart from free-as-in-speech typefaces? >> >> I also think Alexandre's question is a very important one that >> needs an answer before we proceed in any direction. The one >> advantage OFLB has is that typeface authors become the >> curators of their own fonts, which we don't see so much on, >> say, Fontsquirrel, Kernest, or Google. > >I think Daniel is correct. > >What sets OFLB apart from FontSquirrel and GWF is that Ethan and I are >gatekeepers for those services, deciding what is uploaded to each, >whereas OFLB is 'self service.' > >I think it would make sense to add a 'link' object that points to >projects that are hosted and developed elsewhere (DejaVu, Libertine, >etc etc) so that OFLB really IS a 'library' - a complete index of all >libre fonts on the web that presents the fonts in a way that is >pleasant to browse. > >I think the features of www.openhatch.org are also good, in that they >help people to become involved. OFLB can help type designers to set >out a project's roadmap and invite people to participate on particular >tasks.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Eye Magazine on the Ubuntu libre fonts
On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Thomas Phinney wrote: > I think of all proprietary font development, you may very well be right. i am right ;) > Yet, I believe (and hope I am correct) that a majority of type design *for > hire* is reasonably well paid. Most proprietary type design is done by people > who will own the fruits of their labors afterwards. They can hope that some > of their stuff will be super-popular and make them a comfortable living. It's > risky, but they are also making a long-term investment in a library of fonts, > and the more they have, the more long-term income they may get. Sure. And it's great when that happens. But the reality behind the stage where those individuals reach 'comfortable living' is a huge amount of hard work and often not living comfortably. Average all that out, and you get something unextraordinary, in return for a lot of work. It's still good, but nothing to be in awe of. > > But of those type designers who have a full-time employer who owns their > work, most of them make a passable living at it, even by first-world > standards. That seems like a reasonable hope. A lot of mid to large foundries / studios seem to rely on a lot of 'intern work', and low to 'ok' wages. E.g. anyone with a family to support, living in a European city, could probably not afford to work for those wages. Certainly not in the UK. The proprietors probably live well though. > To my mind, open source type design ought to have a similar reward structure > as work-for-hire, insofar as the type designer won't own the fruits of their > labor and needs to be compensated accordingly. I dont think 'open source type design' is a generalised model that you can pin down like that. It's diverse and generally anarchic; pin one bit down and another bit will simply pop up where you don't want it to. > > Of course, it may be that in the era of globalization and interconnectedness, > much type design is simply going to move to places where the cost of living > is lower. We've seen it happen with a variety of kinds of tech jobs. Quite > possibly it will happen with type design as well. I agree, but i don't think you should think solely geographical. I think these things will move into allsorts of new areas of practice, economy and publishing. > > Of course, that raises the question of training. Almost all the degrees and > certificate programs in type design are in the first world, with the > exception of the Universidad de Buenos Aires. One hopes this will change. > (This is not to say that great type designers can't be self-taught, or > apprentice on the job. But I have been impressed with the quality of training > from some of these programs. I think their overall impact in the past decade, > on type design as a career, has been very large.) > Type design programs will probably have to adapt to the new realities much quicker than they have done, so far. The gap gets bigger every academic year. -v
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Eye Magazine on the Ubuntu libre fonts
Thomas, But surely the big chunk of proprietary font development is also carried out by 'less experienced designers', and/or designers that 'are young and don't have a family to support', and/or 'live in countries with significantly lower income expectations than the usa'. ? Those qualitities seem symptomatic of the majority of font designers, irrelevant of what licensing model they publish their fonts under. It's a small minority of font designers that are 'well paid' . Exactly the same problems exists with raising funds too; only the big companies have proper money to spend on fully funded font development; independent foundries and individuals do not. The boon in 'open source' and free fonts is simply another sign of designers sidetepping the old 'ye must go cap in hand to the big companies', and instead finding new economies and new ways of paying the bills by designing fonts. -v On Sep 3, 2012, at 2:41 PM, Thomas Phinney wrote: > The harder problem to solve is one of funding. When a big company is willing > to pay something resembling market rates for a commissioned font, people are > happy to make one, and many or most type designers won't mind if the > resulting font is made open source. > > But more often than not, there isn't a situation like that. So far > Kickstarter and Google Web Fonts have not generally been paying that kind of > money. > > Result? Outside of those few high end commissions, people making open source > fonts tend to have one or often multiple of the following characteristics: > - are less experienced type designers; > - have some special love for the open source model; > - are young and don't have to support a family; > - live in countries with significantly lower income expectations than the USA.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Eye Magazine on the Ubuntu libre fonts
That is one weird article ;) a) The development & release of the Ubuntu Font is old news. b) Bruno Maag has nothing but diss for free type. what's that all about? =) On Sep 3, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Hi! > > "as designers become more used to designing for a digital world, could > the future of typography lie in open source, sharing, modifications > and discussion?" > - http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/free-for-all > > :-D > > Cheers, > Dave > > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Inkscape-FontForge Extension
I'm guessing you are having problems :) Go to the menu item : File->Preferences->Generic and make sure that 'ExportClipboard' is selected 'Off'. Then you should be able to copy/paste glyphs. -v On 22 Nov 2011, at 21:48, Laval Chabon wrote: > Does anybody knows how to copy and paste from a glyph window to another? > FontForge, X11, iMac OS X 10.7.2 > > Frandey Lavie Hypère Chabom⊥ > chabon.laval...@gmail.com > At your glance, à votre guise, en introduction d'apprivoisement. > > URL de l'auteur/of the author: www.lavalchabon.com > > > > > > > > > Le 2011-11-22 à 14:45, Ed Trager a écrit : > >> Hi, Dave! >> >> Thanks for posting - this looks very interesting. >> >> Usually around the holidays I can find a bit more time to work on special >> projects, and so I am now gearing up and excited to get back to work on >> Hariphunchai. Maybe I will try out this new Fontforge extension in the >> process! >> >> Best Wishes - Ed >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> Hi >> >> Felipe has been working on a simple Inkscape extension to make it >> easier to go from Inkscape to FontForge: >> >> http://understandingfonts.com/blog/2011/11/typography-extensions-in-inkscape-0-49/ >> >> Your suggestions about what to do next for this project are welcome :-) >> >> -- >> Cheers >> Dave >> >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Fwd: [ft-devel] ttfautohint 0.5 has been released
Ah yes. Sorry i forgot.
The 0x06 error is from ttfautohint not being able to link to the newer freetype
libs. You need to create new symbolic links form 'libfreetype.so' to the latest
libfreetype that was installed. Sounds like the script Khaled pointed to is
best :)
-v
On 14 Nov 2011, at 22:01, Peter Baker wrote:
> Thanks to Dave, Vernon and Khaled for these replies. Khaled's solution
> is the one that worked for me. I can't interpret the cryptic error
> message ("0x06") that I got when I had two versions of Freetype
> installed--perhaps ttfautohint was trying to use the wrong version.
> But it's working now, and I look forward to playing around with it.
>
> Peter
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Fwd: [ft-devel] ttfautohint 0.5 has been released
Peter, Yes. Ubuntu 10.04 through to 11.10. You can safely install Freetype 2.4.5+ manually into Ubuntu. Download the freetype 2.4.5 source and run './configure', 'make', 'sudo make install'. In my experience this was very simple & in no way broke ubuntu. -vern On 13 Nov 2011, at 22:14, Peter Baker wrote: > Have any Linux users on this list gotten ttfautohint to work? And if > so, what distro are you using? ttfautohint requires Freetype 2.4.5, > but Ubuntu is still running 2.4.4 and is apparently not planning to > upgrade for another year or so (sheesh). > > Alternatively, does anyone know if it's possible (or advisable) to > have two versions of freetype running on the same system? > > Peter > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> :-) >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Werner LEMBERG >> Date: 6 November 2011 01:04 >> Subject: [ft-devel] ttfautohint 0.5 has been released >> >> ttfautohint 0.5 has been released. This time, rendering problems on iOS >> should really be gone... >> >> It is available from >> >>http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freetype/ >> >> or >> >>http://sourceforge.net/projects/freetype/files/ttfautohint >> >> Enjoy! >> >> >> Werner >> >> >> PS: Downloads from savannah.nongnu.org will redirect to your nearest >>mirror site. Files on mirrors may be subject to a replication >>delay of up to 24 hours. In case of problems use >>http://download-mirror.savannah.gnu.org/releases/ >> >> >> -- >> >> >> This project provides a library which takes a TrueType font as the input, >> remove its bytecode instructions (if any), and return a new font where all >> glyphs are bytecode hinted using the information given by FreeType's >> autohinting module. The idea is to provide the excellent quality of the >> autohinter on platforms which don't use FreeType. >> >> The library has a single API function, `TTF_autohint'; see >> `src/ttfautohint.h' for a detailed description. Note that the library >> itself won't get installed currently. >> >> A simple command-line interface to the library is the demo program >> `ttfautohint'; after compilation and installation, say >> >> ttfautohint --help >> >> for usage information, or say >> >> man ttfautohint >> >> to read its manual page. >> >> >> -- >> >> >> New in 0.5: >> >> * Rendering on iOS is now expected to give good results. >> >> * No bad rendering at very large PPEM values. >> >> ___ >> Freetype-devel mailing list >> freetype-de...@nongnu.org >> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel >>
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Ubuntu Font Testing webapp
Theres a debate about on whether Ubuntu are failing the open source ethos by not releasing the font untill it's 'finished'. Interestingly there's an argument that fonts can't practically be released whilst in development (unlike other software) because it would be difficult for the author & users to track changes etc. discuss... ;) On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 20:06 -0400, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 12 July 2010 16:58, vernon adams wrote: > > Is that from the actual ubuntu font shipped with the beta? > > Since I am not an Ubuntu member, and don't have a copy of the DSC and > DEB files to authenticate it, I don't know.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Ubuntu Font Testing webapp
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 16:32 -0400, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 12 July 2010 15:52, Dave Crossland wrote: > > On 12 July 2010 15:49, vernon adams wrote: > >> Is there a place to grab the fonts without signing up for Ubuntu > >> membership ;) > > > > http://www.google.ca/search?q=ubuntubeta+download ahem :) > > Interesting metadata string: > > "FontForge 2.0 : Ubuntu-Beta : 9-6-2010" Is that from the actual ubuntu font shipped with the beta?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Ubuntu Font Testing webapp
Is there a place to grab the fonts without signing up for Ubuntu membership ;) On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 15:38 -0400, Dave Crossland wrote: > http://fonttest.design.canonical.com/ is mentioned in > http://design.canonical.com/2010/07/the-ubuntu-font/ - nice :)
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Why Drupal?
Strikes me that oflb has potential to do 3 things (in no particular order); 1. like sourceforge etc become a repo/HQ for groups & individuals to develop Open fonts. 2. Be another @fontface directory. 3. Be another place to download free fonts. Nos 2 & 3 are straightforward. sourcecode, api's, etc already in use, open and available. No 1. is to me the really interesting prospect - collaboration and group development to get stuff made. designers + coders + kerners + hinters + movers + shakers = good thing :)
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Revival of the fittest
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 03:28 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > > I wonder why you choose to work on a revival instead of an original > > design in a specific genre, though? That seems more fun to me, > > personally :-) > > It's quite an interesting comment from someone with Reading background > :) Yes but Dave evaded the font police there, in fact he's still on the run ;) > First stage of doing art has always been studying and copying > other's work. If anything, that's rarely the first stage of art. The first stage would be some creative 'spirit'. Seeking a deeper knowledge of exactly what one is doing tends to open up later. I guess the earlier it opens up though, the better?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Revival of the fittest
1. Cochin-Peignot inspired face with large xheight (i.e. kill those ascenders) 2. definitely not Thermo type :) On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 16:21 -0500, Nathan Willis wrote: > Hi everyone; > > I mentioned this to a couple of you individually at LGM this year, but > for everyone else, I decided I want to work on a revival -- in large > part to get better with the font toolchain but without having to start > entirely from scratch. > > So I've been looking over sample books and trying both find something > I like and to cross reference what's there with existing open > fonts But rather than just pick out something that I like the > looks of personally, I'd prefer to work on something useful, so I was > hoping I could solicit opinions from the more knowledgable folks on > the list about my current crop of candidates. If anything of these > have been done already under an open license, or bear striking > similarities to one, then they're off my list. On top of that, > though, if any in particular is a better choice for some other reason > that you know of, I'm all ears. > > Anyway, here's what I've turned up that I like thus far: > Nicolas Cochin > Ronaldson > Della Robbia > and, to a lesser extent, Thermo Types > > ... if that is the right name. I started looking through the scans at > Raph Levien's site, then went others at archive.org. In any event, > there seems to be no shortage of possibilities. Does anyone have any > words of wisdom related to these candidates in particular? I'm > entirely open to all feedback and re-direction > > Thanks, > Nate > -- > nathan.p.willis > nwil...@glyphography.com > aim/ym/gtalk:n8willis > identi.ca/n8
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Oflb.org
The onus is on open, not free. That seems to be in line with the oflb. It's secondary that the software is free (as in ££$$). On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:20 -0500, Barry Schwartz wrote: > > It's not at all clear that the site has anything to do with free > software. The name of the site adds to the confusion between openness > and freeness, so actually, I think, one may have to make a special > effort to get the point across that this is a free software site. > > Don't blame me for that being difficult to do; blame Captain Gnu. :) >
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Old Nubian Typefont
Is this the same? Sophia Nubian is a Univers-like Nubian font. http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=SophiaNubian#c5dd1b26 On Sun, 2010-05-30 at 17:56 +0200, Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei wrote: > > My plan/suggestion appeals to anyone who would be interested to (help) > design for the first time design a "real" and open-source font for > this dead language, intended for the academic community (publications, > journals) and the people protecting the heritage of the current Nubian > population in northern Sudan.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Glyph info / encoding question
apologies, wrong mailing list :-/ aimed at fontforge list On Tuesday 13 Apr 2010 11:10:14 vernon adams wrote: > How do you do this... ? > > In the 'Glyph Info' dialog box there is a drop down choice menu for the > 'Glyph Name:'. Most of the time the default is human name, e.g. 'eacute' > but when extending the character set FontForge defaults to Unicode in > place of human, e.g. 'uni1EB1' > Is there a way to automagic force all the names in 'Glyph Info/Glyph Name' > from unicode to human? instead of changing one at a time :-/ > > thanks
[OpenFontLibrary] Glyph info / encoding question
How do you do this... ? In the 'Glyph Info' dialog box there is a drop down choice menu for the 'Glyph Name:'. Most of the time the default is human name, e.g. 'eacute' but when extending the character set FontForge defaults to Unicode in place of human, e.g. 'uni1EB1' Is there a way to automagic force all the names in 'Glyph Info/Glyph Name' from unicode to human? instead of changing one at a time :-/ thanks
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] New Ubuntu Font
On Friday 05 Mar 2010 15:32:05 Garrick Van Buren wrote: > commissioned-then-openly-licensed fonts will be the primary model for the > majority of font development moving forward. > Well you could be right. But. Modes for font development and distribution have diversified hugely over the last 30 years. Can't see that diversity reversing back to any single 'primary model'. If anything, more diversity moving forward seems more likely. You maybe right on the web though, at least untill software allows fully-locked-in fonts to be served securely, universally and seamlessly to web users.
[OpenFontLibrary] Greetings - 1st post
Hi all, Welcoming myself to the open font library. Which is the main & current useable front end to the openfont site? is it openfontlibrary.org or the wiki page? i can upload font files to the Wiki page (http://openfontlibrary.fontly.org/submit/typeface) but not via the http://openfontlibrary.org/media/submit/font page - get some php error :-/ I have a couple of designs to upload & want to put them to the right place. mucho thanks Vern
