>> It's been relicensed to the OFL, which seemed compatible with the TUG
>> grant when we looked at it.
Doesn't seem compatible to me. Just for starters, there's nothing in
the Utopia text that lets a downstream distributor specify new reserved
font names as the OFL does (regardless of wh
I suppose now we'll see energy extended to re-derive the GS 4.0 version
of the fonts
Right.
This is all very sad.
Right.
>From the Tex users group tug.org:(and yes, this is probably not the most
currrent thing...)
Indeed, I wrote that years ago, as stated in the document.
I should probably just entirely delete it at this point.
There is a remarkable dearth of text body fonts in there.
http://www.geocities.com/hartke01/ is the best attempt I know of at
compiling a list of free/libre text fonts.
I don't know of anything closer to Helvetica Neue in the free world
closer than the various URW-Helvetica-Nimbus Sans deriv
You could always override other people's design choices in your own
browser if needed:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/UserContent.css
http://uwstopia.nl/blog/2006/01/my-fonts-are-better-than-yours
All I want to do with font-face is disable it. Is that possible? I
looked at these links
I'm interested in what the others here think, and not just the vocal few.
Since you asked, personally I think the FAQ entry is good. I highly
doubt there is any legal basis for concluding that extracting a font
from a document somehow magically loses all copyright, but, as Dave
said, unless/u
Since it has an advertising clause, it's kinda like the unmodified BSD
license.
Wrong. Expat (and many other licenses) say that a certain name must
*not* be used in advertising. That is ok. The unmodified BSD was
GPL-incompatible because it said a certain name must actively *be* used
- we want to reduce licensing proliferation
I completely agree. However, I don't see the vote as saying "we will
blindly accept any random upload whose license is on license-list.html".
Dave said "via moderation". I took that to mean the moderators will try
to convince such an uploader usin
> So, as policy, should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software
> licenses?
If you mean those licenses listed as free on
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html, I (Karl Berry) vote yes.
Question: Are all of these licenses OSI-recognized?
I don't know.
What about Helvetica?
In what file did you find this license notice? Do you have a url?
the "without fee" may mean it can't be used in commercial fonts?
Or does it just mean Adobe / DEC won't charge you a fee?
So far the responses have focused on the first interpretation (which
woul
btw, "larger software package"... If fonts are software, does that mean
that since we added glyphs to Vera in DejaVu that it would be valid to
sell DejaVu by itself?
FWIW, I concur with the other "no" opinions here -- add hello,world instead.
karl
So, I think as policy we should accept all FSF-free licenses, but have
a moderation queue for anything other than PD, OFL and
GPL-as-we-prefer. That would channel people into best practices
without limiting the range of fonts in the library or nannying.
Agreed.
Thanks,
karl
I think requiring the font exception would be ideal - ie, removing the
2nd category above.
FWIW, I don't agree. I liked your earlier conception much better: if
it's under a free software license, it can be in OFLB. For one thing,
it makes for a much simpler decision process than "we acce
'patented typeface' are few exceptional cases
Yes, it is exceptional.
(is there any?)
Yes. Lucida is one.
karl
___
Openfontlibrary mailing list
Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontli
However I don't want to see any version of that font being sold for
profit
The OFL does allow selling fonts, both the original and a modified
version (otherwise it would not be a free license). For instance, there
are OFL'd fonts in the TeX Live distribution, and we (the TeX Users
Group)
But I agree with you that the older Postscript containers are not
needed since OTF can contain Postscript outlines, right?
Technically, sure, but pfb files are still very useful and widely used
-- in the TeX world, at least. Is anything substantial gained by
disallowing them? Actually, I
A simple arithmetic test, 1 + 3 = [___] seems to be
sufficient in most cases, for example.
savannah.gnu.org has that kind of test. We still get a few spam
registrants. I think the math has to be harder. Some open-ended
typography question ("Who designed Zapf Chancery?") would probably b
Thomas Phinney, product Manager Fonts @ Adobe left this comment on our
blogpost on the possible re-licensing of Utopia:
> Well, gosh, just drop me an email and we can talk. :)
Very cool. Phinney was one of the people in the loop on the whole
previous discussion, as I recall. I don'
* the font would need to be modified (reasonably)
Well, that's the only time the whole question comes up.
* the font would need to be renamed, or if same name kept, or similar
name, authorization needed by Adobe
I agree.
* then, group outlined in the license adobe provides, TEX
As far as I can understand the Adobe Utopia font
(http://tug.org/fonts/utopia ) could be modified and used for
designing, for example, OFL font. Could anybody clarify me the terms
of this license?
Well, I'm the one who pushed Adobe into updating the license to make the
modification
I seem to recall that in early versions of Ghostscript
the URW fonts had a *much* more restricted licence
The AFPL?
My recollection is that the URW fonts were always available under both
the GPL and AFPL. I do not recall there being any time when Aladdin
Ghostscript had the URW fonts and
whether they're really Free since according to the license you can't
redistribute or modify since you don't have any source code...
That seems like an unwarranted conclusion to me. Anyone can release
anything under the GPL (or anything else), if they own the rights to it
-- that's nothin
it's still tagged experimental and
"this needs your input" on the FSF's website.
It is tagged that way since rms is extremely cautious when it comes to
endorsing licenses, but in practice it isn't treated that way. It's
been around for a lot of years, of course, and many of the most
impor
>you ask Barbara, why not?
Barbara doesn't know either. I asked the STIX folks too. If I ever
hear anything useful, I'll post ...
karl
___
Openfontlibrary mailing list
Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/list
What are your thoughts on this? Are you hopeful to interface these with
OFLB, or you have other thoughts? I'm not sure on relicensing these
fonts under OFL license...I don't see a clause on this in the
contract...
The fonts certainly cannot be relicensed. However, in my view the n
Hi Nicolas and all,
ns> Not quite sure how to interpret precisely the second exception...
ns> IMHO this could use a README and a FAQ.
I agree.
dc> I'd say that the OFL was more restrictive than the GPL.
ns>In what way?
You yourself stated later in your msg that the OFL has restr
> I wonder who the best person at Redhat is to contact about asking for
> an OFL release? :-)
I speculate that these fonts, like so many others, were based on the URW
fonts, which are released under GPL+exception. In that case,
legally relicensing would be rather problematic.
k
_
> http://openfontlibrary.org/?ccm=/media/view/media/fonts
There are a remarkable number of fonts there, but there's no clues about
what they actually look like. Can the infrastructure support, say, a
simple image? (I know much more sophisticated things can be done, but
meanwhile, it seems a
> Trademark law does though?
Trademark is about names, i.e., I can't start a new company named
"Google". However, I can legally use the word "Google" (referring to
the behemoth spreading out from Mt. View) without any "TM" afterwards,
as far as I know.
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/
AFAICT "nearly all" means that only GFS Elpis does not currently grant
modification rights.
That's the only non-OFL one I saw as well on the GFS web pages.
There is also the Kerkis Tex-specific font project:
http://www.greekfontsociety.org/pages/en_typefacestex.html
Kerkis is fre
FYI ...
The Greek Font Society has released nearly all their fonts under the OFL
now, according to their web pages.
http://www.greekfontsociety.org/pages/en_typefaces1.html
Yay for the GFS (and Antonis Tsolomitis for discussing it with them).
karl
___
Courier New -
I seem to recall Bitstream, URW, and IBM all releasing versions of
Courier as free "software". Definitely URW.
> I wonder who has solid information on this issue?
URW released their version of the 35 core PostScript fonts under the GPL
many years ago. As far as I know the
> Be warned that typeface designs are subject to copyright in most non-US
> Western countries. So you can't just "re-implement" typeface designs.
1) last I knew, there were typeface copyright laws in Germany and UK (and
France for the Romain du Roi only). If the situation is different
now,
Hi Jon,
So, I wonder what is the thinnest license possible, that is closest to
public domain, but uses copyright
As I wrote, on Debian's advice, I've been using this:
Copyright 2007 C. Holder
You may freely use, modify and/or distribute this file.
Can't get much shorter than that :).
T
Did I misunderstand?
All I was trying to answer was the OP's question of "why should I
copyright instead of use public domain".
___
Openfontlibrary mailing list
Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openf
[Trimming cc since I doubt all those other lists care.]
> I'm also just a bit curious as to why someone thinks I should claim
> copyright of the font and release it under a free license.
Debian(*), among others, have pointed out that the concept of dedicating
something to the public domai
We should include these on the site,
I added some of these links to the wiki (a while back).
possibly the wiki for the time being...however, it would be great to
collect content to put on our site when it has been ok'd by the
original author and/or legally is permissive.
As I m
If you want to include showings on the oflib site, perhaps these will be
useful resources:
- There are samples of many free (maybe some are gratis) fonts supported
in the TeX world at http://www.tug.dk/FontCatalogue/.
- There are larger samples of many free fonts with TeX math
support at http
I am very curious to know the background story here, because its
I can't be certain, but I believe Antonis Tsolomitis was likely involved
at some level. He works for the Univ. of the Aegean, created the Kerkis
font (extension of the free URW Bookman), among other things. I have
corresponded
39 matches
Mail list logo
