Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Recent non-font content on OFLB
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:29:00AM +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: Dave? Ben? Jon? What about the new site? I'm holding my breath for a functional GNU hurd on which I'll run LaTeX3 using final STIX fonts downloaded from the new OFLB website. Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team Free font developer
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Recent non-font content on OFLB
Khaled Hosny wrote: On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:29:00AM +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: Dave? Ben? Jon? What about the new site? I'm holding my breath for a functional GNU hurd on which I'll run LaTeX3 using final STIX fonts downloaded from the new OFLB website. I admire your patience :-) But is it really vaporware when a beta is already out with sources? Regards, Khaled Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary http://planet.open-fonts.org
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Recent non-font content on OFLB
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:45:00PM +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: Khaled Hosny wrote: On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:29:00AM +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: Dave? Ben? Jon? What about the new site? I'm holding my breath for a functional GNU hurd on which I'll run LaTeX3 using final STIX fonts downloaded from the new OFLB website. I admire your patience :-) But is it really vaporware when a beta is already out with sources? Hurd, STIX and even LaTeX3 had betas years before I was even porn :P Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team Free font developer
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] New Ubuntu Font
Great! I really do not like the look of the Vera Sans based fonts that are now the default fonts on most Linux distros (if I’m not mistaken). That is no fault of the Deja-vu teams, it is just that the original design on which they are based I think is hugely unattractive :-( It will be published under an open font license, and considered part of the trade dress of Ubuntu, which will limit its relevance for software interfaces outside of Ubuntu but What do they mean by that? Surely, if it is an open licence, any distro could use it for their software interface? It could represent a leap in the usability of linux for the desktop in general, not just ubuntu (assuming that the font turns out well, of course :)) Though the whole Gnome interface could undergo some serious visual scrutiny imho Eric ps I also think the new logotype is quite nice Op 5 mrt 2010, om 14:31 heeft Dave Crossland het volgende geschreven: Hi, The new Ubuntu branding includes a new font. http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/308 says: -- 8 --- A new Ubuntu font We have commissioned a new font to be developed both for the logo’s of Ubuntu and Canonical, and for use in the interface. The font will be called Ubuntu, and will be a modern humanist font that is optimised for screen legibility. It will be published under an open font license, and considered part of the trade dress of Ubuntu, which will limit its relevance for software interfaces outside of Ubuntu but leave it free for use across the web and in printed documents. It will take a few months for the font to be finalised, initial elements will be final in the next week which will be sufficient for the logo and other bits and pieces, but I expect to see that font widely used in 10.10. The work has been commissioned from world-renowned fontographers Dalton Maag, who have expressed excitement at the opportunity to publish an open font and also a font that they know will be used daily by millions of people. Initial coverage will be Western, Arabic, Hebrew and Cyrillic character sets, but over time we may be able to extend that to being a full Unicode font, with great kerning and hinting for print and screen usage globally. We are considering an internship program, to support aspiring fontographers from all corners of the world to visit London and work with Dalton Maag to extend the font to their own regional glyph set. The critical test of the font is screen efficiency and legibility, and its character and personality are secondary to its fitness for that purpose. Nevertheless, our hope is that the font has a look that is elegant and expresses the full set of values for both Canonical and Ubuntu: adroitness, accountability, precision, reliability, freedom and collaboration. We’ll publish more as soon as we have it. A good start It’s been an exciting process, but I have the sense that we are just getting started. The language will get richer, we will find new things that we want to communicate, and new treatments and visual themes that resonate well with these starting points. We’ll find new ways to integrate this on the web, and on the desktop (look out for the two new themes, Radiance and Ambiance). I hope we’ll see the language being used to good effect across everything we do, both commercial and community oriented. There’s a range of expression here that should be useful to artists across the spectrum. Let me know how it works for you. -- 8 --- We are considering an internship program, to support aspiring fontographers from all corners of the world to visit London and work with Dalton Maag to extend the font to their own regional glyph set. is very cool. -- Regards, Dave
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] New Ubuntu Font
Khaled Hosny wrote: On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 02:31:17PM +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: We are considering an internship program, to support aspiring fontographers from all corners of the world to visit London and work with Dalton Maag to extend the font to their own regional glyph set. is very cool. Very interesting! By mere coincidence, I'm preparing for an Arabic font directed mainly for user interfaces and readability on screens, one have to watch this Ubuntu font closely. Yeah for branding and interface fonts taking into account the needs of the various scripts right from the beginning :-) I find the following in Mark's post to be very good too: The work has been commissioned from world-renowned fontographers Dalton Maag, who have expressed excitement at the opportunity to publish an open font and also a font that they know will be used daily by millions of people. I think it's up to us as a community to think about ways where we can come alongside these established designers commissioned to do open font design to mutually learn and share tools, methodologies and corresponding best practises and as a result improve the overall trajectories of open font projects creation and maintainership. The articulation of existing community-based open font projects and commissioned projects such as this one will probably be quite interesting... Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary http://planet.open-fonts.org
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] New Ubuntu Font
Le Ven 5 mars 2010 14:41, Schrijver a écrit : It will be published under an open font license, and considered part of the trade dress of Ubuntu, which will limit its relevance for software interfaces outside of Ubuntu but What do they mean by that? Surely, if it is an open licence, any distro could use it for their software interface? I really hope Canonical will not engage in creative licence writing there. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] New Ubuntu Font
On Mar 5, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: I think it's up to us as a community to think about ways where we can come alongside these established designers commissioned to do open font design to mutually learn and share tools, methodologies and corresponding best practises and as a result improve the overall trajectories of open font projects creation and maintainership. Excellent. I completely agree and am increasingly of opinion that commissioned-then-openly-licensed fonts will be the primary model for the majority of font development moving forward. --- Garrick Van Buren 612 325 9110 garr...@kernest.com --- Kernest.com Free and Commercial Web Fonts ---
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] New Ubuntu Font
If someone drafts an email, I will join on and make sure it gets to shuttleworth and jono...we should try to engage them constructively. Jon Phillips us. +1-510-499-0894 cn. +86-134-3957-2035 http://rejon.org http://fabricatorz.com On Mar 5, 2010 7:32 AM, Garrick Van Buren garr...@kernest.com wrote: On Mar 5, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: I think it's up to us as a community to thin... Excellent. I completely agree and am increasingly of opinion that commissioned-then-openly-licensed fonts will be the primary model for the majority of font development moving forward. --- Garrick Van Buren 612 325 9110 garr...@kernest.com --- Kernest.com Free and Commercial Web Fonts ---
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] New Ubuntu Font
On 5 March 2010 16:32, Garrick Van Buren garr...@kernest.com wrote: commissioned-then-openly-licensed fonts will be the primary model for the majority of font development moving forward. Do you mean the majority of ALL font development, or the majority of libre font development?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] New Ubuntu Font
On 5 March 2010 20:08, Jon Phillips j...@rejon.org wrote: If someone drafts an email, I will join on and make sure it gets to shuttleworth and jono...we should try to engage them constructively. This weekend I'll think about what to ask :-) While working on the new site!
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Commissioned-then-Open Font Model - was: New Ubuntu Font
Dave, This goes back to our podcast conversation [1] and how font designers can make a living in the world of web fonts. Yes, ALL font development. This comes from my experience w/ Kernest these the past 9 months and the observation that the bulk of the software libraries I work with daily - in both a professional casual capacity - are open sourced. They all originated by either being explicitly commissioned (i.e. make library for me) - or implicitly commissioned (i.e. developed at for the day job). I suspect the bulk of the fonts most people see on computers (the ones that came with their OS) were commissioned by the OS vendor. Most of these are not openly licensed (as you know - many are). I don't know if Matthew Carter still gets paid every time another copy of Windows is sold - but I suspect not. So, I'm not sure what Microsoft would lose by openly licensing Georgia - they've already paid for it. :) Similarly, as long as my invoices are paid - I don't care how my clients license the work I do for them. 1. http://www.firstcrackpodcast.com/archive/first-crack-125 Is this helpful? --- Garrick Van Buren 612 325 9110 garr...@kernest.com --- Kernest.com Free and Commercial Web Fonts --- On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: On 5 March 2010 16:32, Garrick Van Buren garr...@kernest.com wrote: commissioned-then-openly-licensed fonts will be the primary model for the majority of font development moving forward. Do you mean the majority of ALL font development, or the majority of libre font development?
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Commissioned-then-Open Font Model - was: New Ubuntu Font
On 5 March 2010 21:18, Garrick Van Buren garr...@kernest.com wrote: On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: On 5 March 2010 16:32, Garrick Van Buren garr...@kernest.com wrote: commissioned-then-openly-licensed fonts will be the primary model for the majority of font development moving forward. Do you mean the majority of ALL font development, or the majority of libre font development? This goes back to our podcast conversation [1] and how font designers can make a living in the world of web fonts. Yes, ALL font development. Wow, that's quite a statement, then :-) This comes from my experience w/ Kernest these the past 9 months Please tell us more about this :-) and the observation that the bulk of the software libraries I work with daily - in both a professional casual capacity - are open sourced. They all originated by either being explicitly commissioned (i.e. make library for me) - or implicitly commissioned (i.e. developed at for the day job). I think that many authors of software libraries - programmers - understand how they can make more money with free software than with proprietary software, which is why so much free software library code exists. This is less true of applications programmers, and even less true of type designers. That is, I do not see the authors of typefaces - type designers - understand how they can make more money with libre fonts than with proprietary fonts, which is why we have so few. I suspect the bulk of the fonts most people see on computers (the ones that came with their OS) were commissioned by the OS vendor. Most of these are not openly licensed (as you know - many are). I don't know if Matthew Carter still gets paid every time another copy of Windows is sold - but I suspect not. So, I'm not sure what Microsoft would lose by openly licensing Georgia - they've already paid for it. :) OS Vendors rarely commission fonts; that is not in my list of the 3 most common ways of funding proprietary font development: 1. Private, original branding work (Dalton Maag) 2. Public, original type design (typography.com) 3. Public, unoriginal type design (myfonts.com) 1 is fine as far as it goes, since it respects the users' freedom - all one of them, since the font is used by one (legal) person and that is its reason for existing. 2 and 3 require per-user fees. Similarly, as long as my invoices are paid - I don't care how my clients license the work I do for them. Why do your clients allow the work they pay for to be published for their competitors to use? Is this helpful? I hope so :-) -- Regards, Dave Each year in UK schools more than 1 in 6 children leave school unable to read, write or add up [1]. Why? [1: http://ahed.pbwiki.com/Anomaly+Figures ]
