Re: Noto unified font

[Harshula]

Philippe, I presume your response was intended for Luke. If not, you may
want to re-read the thread.

On 09/10/16 15:37, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also
> explicitly allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
> http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi=OFL
> 
> It is not directly compatible with the GPL in a composite product, but
> with LGPL there's no problem, and there's no problem if the font is
> clearly separable and distributed along with its licence, even if the
> software coming with it or the package containing it is commercial: you
> are allowed to detach it from the package and redistribute.
> 
> Really you are challenging the licence for unfair reasons
> May be you just think that the GPL or MIT licences are enough.
> 
> Or you'd like the Public Domain (which in fact offers no protection and
> no long term warranty as it is reappropriatable at any time by
> proprietary licences, even retrospectively, we see everyday companies
> registering properties on pseudo-new technologies that are in fact
> inherited from the past and are used since centuries or more by the
> whole humanity, they leave some space only for today's current usages in
> limtied scopes, but protect everything else by inventing some strange
> concepts around the basic feature, with unfair claims and then want to
> collect taxes). Also an international public domain does not exist at
> all (it is always restricted by new additions to the copyright laws).
> Publishing somethingf in the Public domain is really unsafe.
> 
> 2016-10-09 5:35 GMT+02:00 Harshula  >:
> 
> On 09/10/16 13:50, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote:
> >> On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> >>> It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(
> 
> FSF appears to classify OFL as a Free license (though incompatible with
> the GNU GPL & FDL):
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Fonts
> 
> 
> >> Which alternate license would you recommend?
> >
> > MIT license or LGPL seem reasonable and common among free fonts. Some 
> also
> > choose GPL, but AFAIK it's unclear how the LGPL vs GPL differences 
> apply to
> > fonts.
> 
> Interestingly, Noto project saw advantages of OFL and moved to using it,
> not too long ago:
> https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/blob/master/NEWS
> 
> 
> It seems you disagree with FSF's interpretation of the OFL and bundling
> Hello World as being sufficient. Are there other reasons for your
> preference for MIT/LGPL/GPL over OFL?
> 
> > On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:16:37 AM you wrote:
> >> That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer 
> and
> >> of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want 
> anyone
> >> else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort
> >> into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects 
> the
> >> moral rights of the developer.
> 
> Why are you attributing Shriramana Sharma's email to me? It might be
> clearer if you replied to his email.
> 
> cya,
> #

Re: Noto unified font

[Doug Ewell]

Philippe Verdy wrote:


I did not receive the message from David Starner you are quoting, it
was probably not sent to this list but I did not received it privately
(not even in my "spam mailbox").


http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m10/0134.html

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org 

Re: Noto unified font

[Philippe Verdy]

I did not receive the message from David Starner you are quoting, it was
probably not sent to this list but I did not received it privately (not
even in my "spam mailbox").
Anyway I agree with your response, David Starner has a strange
interpretation of this common word (notably in the context what I used it
after "any").

However In my sense a product is the result of an process requiring an
active participation. The webster definition is a bit larger (and also
match with the meaning of the term "produit" in French, which also includes
results of natural processes such as apples or ashes from a volvano: the
term emphases the fact that there's a process of transformation from a
state to another and that the result has an added value, but of course not
necessarily a financial value by itself or a financial cost).

Here were' speaking about software (or structured data) which is always the
result of an active process going from an idea to some implementation and
its advertizing and distribution. It always has a financial cost, but this
cost is already shared and spread with the means we use to access or
distribute this result, or discuss and improve it. It also has a finanial
cost given the time devoted to make it (time is money: if you're not paid
for it, it will cost you in terms of the money you don't collect for that
time not spent on other tasks, but it also means the time gained by others
easily using the result with low costs that they will still have to support
themselves; only to receive this email, you've spent money for your FAI and
paid the bill for the electricity and spent time on your computer whose
aging will require you to change it in some months or years when it will no
longer be usable for the tools you need everyday on it).

Open sourcing a software or data or graphic design, or artistic product, or
a font here is a way to share and split the costs to smaller amounts that
more people can support, instead on giving all the money to a single
producer, assuming also all risks when investing in it for the creation,
production, distribution and support., it eliminates single points of
failure or defects by allowing more freedom for the replacement or
servicing, with lower losses and risks taken by the participants to this
process. It allows anyone participating in less tasks, that are less
compelx to them, and then delegate the rest to others in mutual
cooperations. Generally it also allows faster developements and easier
adaptations by varying methods. And instread of investing time in a single
activity, we invest time in many more, just when we need them or when we
think we may be useful and more efficient in some limited domains.

In the open sourcing processes, you have to be confident that people will
help you and you'll help them, but not just in a one-to-one relation with
direct returns and in timely delays (like in commercial contracts). You
don't order people to do things for you, you don't pay them directly, you
are also never required to donate something in exchange immediately. The
benefits are only there because you are part of the process and because
everyone gets more than what he donates (the total added value is then
larger than in private commercial relations). We are not just consumers but
also producers and creators in a collective work where the goal is largely
focused on actual needs and usages. All people like to be creative, and
it's always intereting to see many people adding their own creativity to a
project, for things we would have not imagined ourself or not expected that
they would find smarter solutions than ours.

In fact it is for the same reason that we have developed collective laws
and have governments and elected delegates, or public services all around
the world (but as opposed to them, there's no required tax to pay, no dated
bills, even if we still have rules to obey: the licence terms for which we
also want to be supported by collective laws protecting these terms against
unfairness or against abuses).

2016-10-09 21:28 GMT+02:00 James Kass :

> David Starner responded,
>
> >> The word "free" when applied to any product means "free of charge".
> >
> > Using the word "product" sort of biases your argument, does it not?
>
> Webster's defines "product" as something produced by nature, industry,
> or art.  So an apple is a product whether it's a wild apple, a
> cultivated apple, or a road apple.  Software is also a product, and as
> with any product, it's either free or for sale.
>
> > ... it seems to be a problem more frequently of people getting
> > annoyed than people getting confused.
>
> Isn't confusion annoying?
>
> Best regards,
>
> James Kass
>

Re: Noto unified font

[James Kass]

David Starner responded,

>> The word "free" when applied to any product means "free of charge".
>
> Using the word "product" sort of biases your argument, does it not?

Webster's defines "product" as something produced by nature, industry,
or art.  So an apple is a product whether it's a wild apple, a
cultivated apple, or a road apple.  Software is also a product, and as
with any product, it's either free or for sale.

> ... it seems to be a problem more frequently of people getting
> annoyed than people getting confused.

Isn't confusion annoying?

Best regards,

James Kass

Re: Noto unified font

[Philippe Verdy]

I meant the **complete** coverage. Basic Greek and Basic Cyrillic is not
enough.

Also I did not say that Hebrew, Georgian, Armenian and Cherokee were
included, this was a suggestion (Cherokee being largely an adaptation of
Latin+Greek+Cyrillic with some additional strokes for new letters, it could
as well be included in the default Noto Sans and could share glyphs)

2016-10-09 17:25 GMT+02:00 Cristian Secară :

> În data de Sun, 9 Oct 2016 16:14:50 +0200, Philippe Verdy a scris:
>
> > And the Noto project is not finished :
> >
> > - Its monospace can still be improved to cover more than just Latin
> > and general punctuation.
> > - Adding Cyrillic, Greek, and a few other scripts that work well in
> > monospace styles (e.g. Hebrew, possibly Georgian and Armenian or even
> > Cherokee) would seem a good future goal
>
> I checked the NotoMono-Regular.ttf file [1]:
> - Greek includes range U+0384 to U+03CE (less the reserved ones) plus
> U+03D1, U+03D2 and U+03D6
> - Cyrillic seems to include the whole range, except for U+0487 combining
> mark
> - Hebrew, Georgian, Armenian and Cherokee – blanks only
>
> The NotoSansMonoCJKxx range is poorer in this area, but still includes the
> "basic" Greek and Cyrillic.
>
> Cristi
>
> [1] from https://www.google.com/get/noto/
>
> --
> Cristian Secară
> http://www.secărică.ro 
>

Re: Noto unified font

[Cristian Secară]

În data de Sun, 9 Oct 2016 16:14:50 +0200, Philippe Verdy a scris:

> And the Noto project is not finished :
> 
> - Its monospace can still be improved to cover more than just Latin
> and general punctuation.
> - Adding Cyrillic, Greek, and a few other scripts that work well in
> monospace styles (e.g. Hebrew, possibly Georgian and Armenian or even
> Cherokee) would seem a good future goal

I checked the NotoMono-Regular.ttf file [1]:
- Greek includes range U+0384 to U+03CE (less the reserved ones) plus U+03D1, 
U+03D2 and U+03D6
- Cyrillic seems to include the whole range, except for U+0487 combining mark
- Hebrew, Georgian, Armenian and Cherokee – blanks only

The NotoSansMonoCJKxx range is poorer in this area, but still includes the 
"basic" Greek and Cyrillic.

Cristi

[1] from https://www.google.com/get/noto/

-- 
Cristian Secară
http://www.secărică.ro

Re: Noto unified font

[Philippe Verdy]

This was not the first prority of the project I think. Monospace fonts were
used for text input in web forms but this old use id now deprecating,
except probably for CJK, due to poor readability and design and the
inability to handle lot of scripts.
Monospace fonts are still used for programming languages where code is
almost always in Latin and translatable contents are preferably stored in
external resources. For editing the external resources, there's no need of
complex data structures, the format is most often linear and you don't need
any monospace fonts.

But there are still programs created mixing code and UI text in static
strings and some limited usages in internationalized regexps (which is a
sort of programming language with complex rules). I suggest that such
editors should have an interface to swtich instantly from a monospace and
normal font. There are decent text editors that are friendly with Latin/CJK
monospace fonts and proportional fonts for other scripts or symbols.

And the Noto project is not finished :

- Its monospace can still be improved to cover more than just Latin and
general punctuation.
- Adding Cyrillic, Greek, and a few other scripts that work well in
monospace styles (e.g. Hebrew, possibly Georgian and Armenian or even
Cherokee) would seem a good future goal (monospace fonts for Arabic are
most horrible, except in very creative/fancy designs, even if the Arabic
script is very flexible using long joining, but some complex ligatures
which don't fit well in a character cell).
- However it is really not needed for CJK scripts (that have their own
fonts already with monospace metrics), including the Japanese kanas and
Bopomofo (as well as mappings for subsets of Latin/Greek/Cyrillic inherited
from legacy non-Unicode charsets).

But another project should now target more urgent needs: fonts with
excellent typographic features for printing, advertizing, titling, to be
used for finalized publications (printed or in PDFs) which would be
beautiful, or that would better reproduce the best handwritten/painted
artworks, or that woudl restore the best typographic traditions used since
centuries. Peoiple now start rediscovering the beauty of these traditions
but rarely with solutions that are usable with our modern languages using a
richer repertoire of characters (many borrowed directly from other scripts
or languages), so the best-looking fonts are only designed for some limited
languages (most often the major European languages, but frequently only
Basic English and Classical Latin or Greek) :

- the serif style fonts still need extensions of their coverage (I think it
is more urgent than the monospace styles).

I like also the fact that the Noto project opted for distinguishing the two
major traditions for the Arabic script.

About each year, there's an updated version of the set, but most often this
occurs due to the extension of the universal repertoire (and it is easier
to separate the designs per script as it eases the updating process and
tests if they are just extended with some new characters, new encoded
variants, or new pairs with diacritics or complex ligatures and layouts for
Indic scripts.

And in fact I'd like that Windows Update to also include this distribution
(independantly of the many legacy fonts for MS Office). For now Noto Sans
still competes with the "Segoe" families made for the Windows UI, but it
has a limited coverage (May be Noto should be installed by default with
Chrome and Safari, probably also with JRE/JDK for Java). It is highly
preferable to the older Arial, Verdana, Times New Roman family whose
coverage is now old (but still distributed and updated with MS IE/Edge).

For monospaced fonts, "Consolas" from Microsoft is still better than Noto
and the older "Courier New".



2016-10-09 14:14 GMT+02:00 Oren Watson :

> I am disappointed with Noto Mono, which only covers Latin script, and not
> Greek, and Cyrillic when most existing monospace fonts do.
>
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Philippe Verdy  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2016-10-09 8:17 GMT+02:00 Luke Dashjr :
>>
>>> On Sunday, October 09, 2016 4:37:24 AM Philippe Verdy wrote:
>>> > The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also
>>> explicitly
>>> > allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
>>> > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi=OFL
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. That link is just a commentary, and of no relevance to
>>> non-
>>> SIL-owned fonts.
>>>
>>
>> The link is the one directly used on the Noto description page when it
>> refers to the OFL licence. It is not saying that it is only for SIL-owned
>> fonts. Google/Monotype would have linked to another page if needed but this
>> is the most relevant one explicitly stated by Google on the Noto site.
>>
>
>

Re: Noto unified font

[Oren Watson]

I am disappointed with Noto Mono, which only covers Latin script, and not
Greek, and Cyrillic when most existing monospace fonts do.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Philippe Verdy  wrote:

>
>
> 2016-10-09 8:17 GMT+02:00 Luke Dashjr :
>
>> On Sunday, October 09, 2016 4:37:24 AM Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> > The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also
>> explicitly
>> > allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
>> > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi=OFL
>>
>> No, it doesn't. That link is just a commentary, and of no relevance to
>> non-
>> SIL-owned fonts.
>>
>
> The link is the one directly used on the Noto description page when it
> refers to the OFL licence. It is not saying that it is only for SIL-owned
> fonts. Google/Monotype would have linked to another page if needed but this
> is the most relevant one explicitly stated by Google on the Noto site.
>

Re: Noto unified font

[Philippe Verdy]

2016-10-09 8:17 GMT+02:00 Luke Dashjr :

> On Sunday, October 09, 2016 4:37:24 AM Philippe Verdy wrote:
> > The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also
> explicitly
> > allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
> > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi=OFL
>
> No, it doesn't. That link is just a commentary, and of no relevance to non-
> SIL-owned fonts.
>

The link is the one directly used on the Noto description page when it
refers to the OFL licence. It is not saying that it is only for SIL-owned
fonts. Google/Monotype would have linked to another page if needed but this
is the most relevant one explicitly stated by Google on the Noto site.

Re: Noto unified font

[dzo]

James, Any thoughts about a Code 2xxx suite/family based on all the work you've 
already done? 

All, A tangential question wrt the history of computer font development: What 
kind of collections / repositories of old fonts are there? In particular, 
thinking of pre-Unicode "special fonts" including hacks for languages written 
with extended Latin characters.

I understand that Chantal Enguehard has a collection of 8-bit fonts developed 
for African languages. Are there others? Any thoughts about a "museum" of fonts 
and encodings? Could have educational value in the future. 

Don Osborn

Sent via BlackBerry by AT

-Original Message-
From: James Kass <jameskass...@gmail.com>
Sender: "Unicode" <unicode-boun...@unicode.org>Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 16:20:20 
To: Unicode Public<unicode@unicode.org>
Subject: Re: Noto unified font

Philippe Verdy wrote,

> Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts made
> specifically for each script ...

In a constantly changing world, it should be a pleasant experience to
be reminded
that some things remain constant.

Whether the Noto font family is released as one file or many, it seems that
somebody considers it a worthwhile endeavor.

Longtime Unicode proponents remember when complex script shaping (for
example) wasn't supported.  Nowadays, thanks in good part to Unicode
pioneers,
most everything just works "right out of the box".

As it should.

With the advent of the Noto font (or font collection), users have the option of
getting a reasonable display of desired characters rather than strings of boxes
or last resort fallbacks.  That's also as it should be, IMHO.

Best regards,

James Kass

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Philippe Verdy <verd...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts made
> specifically for each script (some scripts having several national variants,
> notably for sinographs, most of them having two styles except symbols, most
> of them having two weights, except symbols that have a single weight and
> sinograms having more...)
>
> So no they are not "pan-Unicode". Each font in the collection however has
> its own metrics, best suited for each script, and they are still made to
> harmonize together (tested side-by-side with Latin and CJK) so they look
> great in multilingual documents. It would have not been possible in a single
> font anyway.
>
>
> 2016-10-08 19:57 GMT+02:00 James Kass <jameskass...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all
>> languages:
>>
>> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/06/google-and-monotype-unveil-the-noto-projects-unified-font-for-all-languages/
>>
>> About ten years or so ago, I recall being actively discouraged from
>> working on the Code2xxx fonts because pan-Unicode fonts were passé, because
>> there was no perceived need for displaying multilingual text in a coherent
>> typeface, and that the optimal solution was for people to simply have
>> multiple fonts targeting the users' required scripts.
>>
>> Ironic, isn't it?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> James Kass
>
>

Re: Noto unified font

[Cristian Secară]

În data de Sun, 9 Oct 2016 00:00:33 +, Luke Dashjr a scris:

> It forbids sale of the font by itself.

I would say "big deal".

A font belongs merely to the "cultural" side of a project or product. I this 
area it is better to discourage any commercial interests in order to serve 
better the cultural aspects and avoid any [artificial] obstacles.

So, I fail to understand why the forbid the sale of the font itself is a 
problem or a bad thing. On contrary !

Cristi

-- 
Cristian Secară
http://www.secărică.ro

Re: Noto unified font

[David Starner]

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 11:07 PM James Kass  wrote:

> The word "free" when applied to any product means "free of charge".
>

Using the word "product" sort of biases your argument, does it not?

"Freeware" appears to be a contraction of "free software".  If so, the
> two terms are identical in meaning.


That's bad lexicography. A "PC" is not merely a computer that is personal.
"software" is not "ware" that is "soft".

The first use of the word freeware was in late 1982, and the use of free
software was used in Infoworld in 1983 to refer to public domain software.
The distinction has been around for a long time.

It's too bad the promoters of
> "free-libre" software didn't call it "libre".  Creating an artificial
> distinction between identical terms in order to promote a philosophy
> some reject smacks of Newspeak.
>

Which someone else would complain about. That is one of the meanings of
"free" in English. English is a large confusing language with many
communities with their own jargon, and for 30 years "free software" has
referred to software that can be used without restriction on changing and
reselling in certain English speaking communities. Like British/American
disagreements, it seems to be a problem more frequently of people getting
annoyed than people getting confused.

Re: Noto unified font

[Luke Dashjr]

On Sunday, October 09, 2016 4:37:24 AM Philippe Verdy wrote:
> The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also explicitly
> allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
> http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi=OFL

No, it doesn't. That link is just a commentary, and of no relevance to non-
SIL-owned fonts.

The actual license itself begins with the problematic restriction:

1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components,
in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.

> It is not directly compatible with the GPL in a composite product, but with
> LGPL there's no problem,

LGPL doesn't work that way. It allows other software to use it without being 
compatible, but any component or dependency of the LGPL'd software must meet 
the same requirements as the GPL.

> Really you are challenging the licence for unfair reasons

What unfair reasons are those? My *only* concern is that it is not free.
I don't even care to sell the fonts myself, but simply do not use non-free 
software on principle.

Luke

Re: Noto unified font

[James Kass]

Philippe Verdy wrote,

> The purpose is not to invent new designs but present designs
> that are easily read and convenient for each script ...

Based on what I've seen so far, Monotype has done a splendid job.  No
doubt involving plenty of design work.  Philippe Verdy has outlined
some of the design decisions already, and it should be noted that
designing a pan-Unicode font (or font collection) for multilingual
text display using easily read script-conventional glyphs probably
isn't as easy as it sounds.



The word "free" when applied to any product means "free of charge".

"Freeware" appears to be a contraction of "free software".  If so, the
two terms are identical in meaning.  If not, speakers of standard
English would consider them so.  It's too bad the promoters of
"free-libre" software didn't call it "libre".  Creating an artificial
distinction between identical terms in order to promote a philosophy
some reject smacks of Newspeak.



Best regards,

James Kass

Re: Noto unified font

[Philippe Verdy]

The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also explicitly
allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi=OFL

It is not directly compatible with the GPL in a composite product, but with
LGPL there's no problem, and there's no problem if the font is clearly
separable and distributed along with its licence, even if the software
coming with it or the package containing it is commercial: you are allowed
to detach it from the package and redistribute.

Really you are challenging the licence for unfair reasons
May be you just think that the GPL or MIT licences are enough.

Or you'd like the Public Domain (which in fact offers no protection and no
long term warranty as it is reappropriatable at any time by proprietary
licences, even retrospectively, we see everyday companies registering
properties on pseudo-new technologies that are in fact inherited from the
past and are used since centuries or more by the whole humanity, they leave
some space only for today's current usages in limtied scopes, but protect
everything else by inventing some strange concepts around the basic
feature, with unfair claims and then want to collect taxes). Also an
international public domain does not exist at all (it is always restricted
by new additions to the copyright laws). Publishing somethingf in the
Public domain is really unsafe.

2016-10-09 5:35 GMT+02:00 Harshula :

> On 09/10/16 13:50, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote:
> >> On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> >>> It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(
>
> FSF appears to classify OFL as a Free license (though incompatible with
> the GNU GPL & FDL):
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Fonts
>
> >> Which alternate license would you recommend?
> >
> > MIT license or LGPL seem reasonable and common among free fonts. Some
> also
> > choose GPL, but AFAIK it's unclear how the LGPL vs GPL differences apply
> to
> > fonts.
>
> Interestingly, Noto project saw advantages of OFL and moved to using it,
> not too long ago:
> https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/blob/master/NEWS
>
> It seems you disagree with FSF's interpretation of the OFL and bundling
> Hello World as being sufficient. Are there other reasons for your
> preference for MIT/LGPL/GPL over OFL?
>
> > On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:16:37 AM you wrote:
> >> That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer
> and
> >> of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want
> anyone
> >> else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort
> >> into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the
> >> moral rights of the developer.
>
> Why are you attributing Shriramana Sharma's email to me? It might be
> clearer if you replied to his email.
>
> cya,
> #
>

Re: Noto unified font

[Philippe Verdy]

2016-10-09 2:20 GMT+02:00 James Kass :

> Philippe Verdy wrote,
>
> > Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts
> made
> > specifically for each script ...
>
> In a constantly changing world, it should be a pleasant experience to
> be reminded that some things remain constant.
>
> Whether the Noto font family is released as one file or many, it seems that
> somebody considers it a worthwhile endeavor.
>

The major reason there are several fonts and not just one is because not
all scripts have the same variants and styles (and it's not a defect of the
design). And there are different requirements for example allowing choosing
preferences between color or monochrmatic emojis, using standard (narrow)
Latin from Noto Sans, or wider variants of Latin for CJK: in a stylesheet
you can still customize the order even if Noto Sans will be part of all
sets of families. Some variants don't make sens at all for Arabic
(sans-serif and serif, but are replaced by two traditional variants of the
script); monospaced fonts are also not available for Arabic (they exist but
are extremely poor), or many Indic scripts. The purpose is not to invent
new designs but present designs that are easily read and convenient for
each script (and that's why there are also more weights in the CJK fonts;
for Latin additional weights way be directly infered from the two stadnard
weights, may be later there will be Latin/Greek/Cyrillic with more weights,
but the need was less urgent than for CJK due to its complexity to make it
readable and still preserve a coherent overall blackness/contrast).

May be some fonts in this set could be merged, e.g. the Cherokee font could
be merged with the Latin/Greek/Cyrillic font.

Re: Noto unified font

[Harshula]

On 09/10/16 13:50, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote:
>> On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
>>> It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(

FSF appears to classify OFL as a Free license (though incompatible with
the GNU GPL & FDL):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Fonts

>> Which alternate license would you recommend?
> 
> MIT license or LGPL seem reasonable and common among free fonts. Some also 
> choose GPL, but AFAIK it's unclear how the LGPL vs GPL differences apply to 
> fonts.

Interestingly, Noto project saw advantages of OFL and moved to using it,
not too long ago:
https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/blob/master/NEWS

It seems you disagree with FSF's interpretation of the OFL and bundling
Hello World as being sufficient. Are there other reasons for your
preference for MIT/LGPL/GPL over OFL?

> On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:16:37 AM you wrote:
>> That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and
>> of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone
>> else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort
>> into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the
>> moral rights of the developer.

Why are you attributing Shriramana Sharma's email to me? It might be
clearer if you replied to his email.

cya,
#

Re: Noto unified font

[Harshula]

On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(

Which alternate license would you recommend?

cya,
#

Re: Noto unified font

[Luke Dashjr]

On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote:
> On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(
> 
> Which alternate license would you recommend?

MIT license or LGPL seem reasonable and common among free fonts. Some also 
choose GPL, but AFAIK it's unclear how the LGPL vs GPL differences apply to 
fonts.

On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:16:37 AM you wrote:
> That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and
> of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone
> else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort
> into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the
> moral rights of the developer.

It's the standard definition of free software.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Re: Noto unified font

[Leonardo Boiko]

That's not "his" definition of non-free.  Restrictions on selling copies
commercially violate the Free Software Foundation's definition of non-free:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses

And also the Open Source Initiative's definition of non-free:
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
 https://opensource.org/faq#commercial

And also the Debian project's definition of non-free:
https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

In short, every single major free software organization requires free
software to allow the user complete freedom of redistribution, commercial
or otherwise.  Otherwise the software isn't free in the sense of giving the
user freedom; it is merely free of charge.


2016-10-08 21:16 GMT-03:00 Shriramana Sharma :

> That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and
> of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone
> else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort
> into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the
> moral rights of the developer.
>

Re: Noto unified font

[Shriramana Sharma]

That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and
of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone
else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort
into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the
moral rights of the developer.

Re: Noto unified font

[James Kass]

Philippe Verdy wrote,

> Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts made
> specifically for each script ...

In a constantly changing world, it should be a pleasant experience to
be reminded
that some things remain constant.

Whether the Noto font family is released as one file or many, it seems that
somebody considers it a worthwhile endeavor.

Longtime Unicode proponents remember when complex script shaping (for
example) wasn't supported.  Nowadays, thanks in good part to Unicode
pioneers,
most everything just works "right out of the box".

As it should.

With the advent of the Noto font (or font collection), users have the option of
getting a reasonable display of desired characters rather than strings of boxes
or last resort fallbacks.  That's also as it should be, IMHO.

Best regards,

James Kass

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Philippe Verdy  wrote:
> Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts made
> specifically for each script (some scripts having several national variants,
> notably for sinographs, most of them having two styles except symbols, most
> of them having two weights, except symbols that have a single weight and
> sinograms having more...)
>
> So no they are not "pan-Unicode". Each font in the collection however has
> its own metrics, best suited for each script, and they are still made to
> harmonize together (tested side-by-side with Latin and CJK) so they look
> great in multilingual documents. It would have not been possible in a single
> font anyway.
>
>
> 2016-10-08 19:57 GMT+02:00 James Kass :
>>
>> Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all
>> languages:
>>
>> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/06/google-and-monotype-unveil-the-noto-projects-unified-font-for-all-languages/
>>
>> About ten years or so ago, I recall being actively discouraged from
>> working on the Code2xxx fonts because pan-Unicode fonts were passé, because
>> there was no perceived need for displaying multilingual text in a coherent
>> typeface, and that the optimal solution was for people to simply have
>> multiple fonts targeting the users' required scripts.
>>
>> Ironic, isn't it?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> James Kass
>
>

Re: Noto unified font

[Shriramana Sharma]

Interested to know why you think OFL is non-free...

On 9 Oct 2016 05:18, "Luke Dashjr"  wrote:

> On Saturday, October 08, 2016 5:57:41 PM James Kass wrote:
> > Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all
> > languages:
> > https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/06/google-and-monotype-
> unveil-the-noto-proje
> > cts-unified-font-for-all-languages/
>
> It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(
>

Re: Noto unified font

[Luke Dashjr]

It forbids sale of the font by itself. (I'm aware the FSF thinks there's a 
loophole by bundling "hello world", but I don't think this would hold up in 
court.)

On Saturday, October 08, 2016 11:50:40 PM Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Interested to know why you think OFL is non-free...
> 
> On 9 Oct 2016 05:18, "Luke Dashjr"  wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 08, 2016 5:57:41 PM James Kass wrote:
> > > Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all
> > > languages:
> > > https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/06/google-and-monotype-> > 
> > unveil-the-noto-proje
> > 
> > > cts-unified-font-for-all-languages/
> > 
> > It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(

Re: Noto unified font

[Luke Dashjr]

On Saturday, October 08, 2016 5:57:41 PM James Kass wrote:
> Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all
> languages:
> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/06/google-and-monotype-unveil-the-noto-proje
> cts-unified-font-for-all-languages/

It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(

Re: Noto unified font

[Philippe Verdy]

Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts made
specifically for each script (some scripts having several national
variants, notably for sinographs, most of them having two styles except
symbols, most of them having two weights, except symbols that have a single
weight and sinograms having more...)

So no they are not "pan-Unicode". Each font in the collection however has
its own metrics, best suited for each script, and they are still made to
harmonize together (tested side-by-side with Latin and CJK) so they look
great in multilingual documents. It would have not been possible in a
single font anyway.


2016-10-08 19:57 GMT+02:00 James Kass :

> Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all
> languages:
> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/06/google-and-monotype-
> unveil-the-noto-projects-unified-font-for-all-languages/
>
> About ten years or so ago, I recall being actively discouraged from
> working on the Code2xxx fonts because pan-Unicode fonts were passé, because
> there was no perceived need for displaying multilingual text in a coherent
> typeface, and that the optimal solution was for people to simply have
> multiple fonts targeting the users' required scripts.
>
> Ironic, isn't it?
>
> Best regards,
>
> James Kass
>