Dave Crossland wrote: > 2009/7/30 Robert Martinez <m...@mray.de>: >> Apart from that only a MIT and a GPL version are required - right? >> I can work on those icons this evening. > > Those 3 licenses are our 'recommended' or 'core' ones, and I think > that if we host other licensed fonts (again, I forget where we are on > that) they could just have a 'generic free' license icon. So if you > can work on 3 icons (that I might keyword as GPL, BSD, FREE) that > would be great :-)
Why the mixup of license policy again? We really need to avoid confusing contributors. See the previous thread where this was discussed: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/2009-July/002381.html We really need to use official logos of our licenses. Get in touch with the authors of MIT for that one. The GPLv3 + FE logo needs to be different from standard http://www.gnu.org/graphics/license-logos.html for clarity. Seriously, what will "a generic free" keyword/icon blanket category bring apart from confusion about what "free" means? -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary http://planet.open-fonts.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
