Hi!
On 14 May 2011 05:48, Victor Gaultney vt...@gaultney.org wrote:
Congrats on the new site - it looks terrific. Very nicely done!
Jon Philips and Christopher Adams did all the hard work! :-)
I wonder about the OFL RFN though - this option is typically used, and
it requires any modifications to be renamed, so I guess this feature
would not be available for RFN fonts
There's a very good reason for that. Font metadata is not just informational
- it affects the behavior of the font. By changing some seemingly
informational metadata you can easily break the font or change how it works.
If you let people modify other people's fonts on the site then there is no
guarantee that the font that is downloaded works the way the designer
intended.
If you want other people to mess with your fonts - maybe improve them but
maybe break them and make you look bad - then don't declare any RFNs. Simple
as that. Otherwise, an RFN is an elegant and simple way to ensure that what
people download is what you designed.
I guess what I am suggesting then, is that if the OFLB moves from a
libre font 'dead drop' to a active font development community, the
site upload form could check for RFNs, and if found, ask designers to
provide a non-RFN name (or drop their RFN) and have that become the
primary OFLB name visible to users.
The RFN font data would still be ingested, and the RFN names could
still be indexed internally and used in the listings and family pages
- so if someone searches for Gentium, they find a font marked clearly
as a Gentium derivative, but also a link to the RFN version of the
files.
Google Web Fonts requires contributors to waive the RFN to allow them
to make modifications, so perhaps the OFLB form could also get
uploaders to confirm this.
AFAIK, Google is essentially making a separate agreement with each designer
that allows Google to modify those specific fonts. That's fine, and we at
SIL have done just that (though through a different mechanism).
I don't think, however, that the OFLB can allow this for fonts uploaded to
OFLB. Google is a legal entity which SIL is allowing to modify the fonts yet
retain RFNs. In the case of the OFLB, who is the legal entity? And if you're
allowing site visitors to modify the fonts, then any agreement to use RFNs
for modified fonts would need to be between the copyright holder and the
person doing the modification, not the OFLB.
The solution is simple:
- If a designer wishes others to be able to modify the fonts yet retain the
name, they should not declare any RFNs.
- If they want to make sure their font remains unmodified with the current
name, they should declare any RFNs.
I strongly recommend against any system that asks/requires contributors to
waive certain legal rights.
As I understand them, Additional Permissions can be given to all
parties worldwide - that's how the GPL Font Exception works.
But I essentially agree with you, thinking over the feature properly,
the feature should be a little more technically complex and a lot less
legally complex.
On 14 May 2011 10:46, Alexandre Prokoudine
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/11, Victor Gaultney wrote:
many designers, and makes the free font movement look more and more like
Johnny Depp.
And that means what exactly? :)
I understood that Victor was suggesting the libre font movement is
becoming associated with unauthorized distribution of proprietary
works, because Depp's most famous today for his role as disney pirate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sparrow
He may instead been suggesting it was like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Scissorhands
Also, if we make free font movement look more like Angelina Jolie,
whatever it would mean, would it help? :)
Your suggestion to make libre fonts more pretty is a good one, I think.
:-)
--
Cheers
Dave
