Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 6 Jun 2013, at 21:20, rfink0...@gmail.com wrote: Lastly - Vernon, I'm on your side, as far as your aims are concerned. Totally. So don't get me wrong. But as somebody else wrote somewhere on this thread or one closely associated with this topic: where in the license does it say you've got to keep a pristine copy of the font up on a server somewhere available for download? It doesn't. But i think it's should be assumed the following basic of Free Software; if someone modifies Free Software then their modifications also are Free Software. To modify Free Software, but then to close your modifications off (even partly) is usually a breach of the Free Software community 'values', and maybe even sometimes a breach of a license. These redistributions of 'modified' Free web fonts via major foundry's font servers are maybe more 'on the edge' of value breaches, rather than license breaches, the technical details of which have some if's and but's. Personally, i want to stay pragmatic about it all. Also i sense that there can be some sort of 'parasite / host' relationship that may be more interesting that anything else. These big web servers are potentially simply big hosts. Ideally i would like these hosts to hold downloadable files, but, in any case the current free serving off WOFFs, that can also be grabbed, is better than nothing. Something to work with, at least. I think the idea of browsers being able to 1-click download WOFFs from web pages, with conversion back to an OTF, post download, would be an awesome thing. I'd love to see such a tool appear in the next months. One aspect of the Adobe Edge service i still haven't worked out; and that is what files do they use as the 'source' of the OFL's files they are serving? The WOFF files that land in my browser cache, are from postscript outlines i assume. I guess they were not converted from Truetype outlines. I haven't had a good look, though i am curious. Any ideas? And I'm saying - how many caveats are there going to be? What's the goal here? Seems to me, that after three years or so of this, web fonts are still being strangled by their own rules. And what's going to happen when the fonts need to install as part of an ebook? It goes from bad to worse. There are as many caveats as each designer / copyright holder want to create, i guess. I have few caveats. Others have more, and others less. I'm not sure i agree that webfonts are being strangled at all. Why do you say that? Seems to me they keep spreading and spreading. Seems to be no antidote. Maybe specifics would help. Would you mind answering this: Do you consider the fonts you create to be your intellectual property? If so, what rights do you want to hand over to users via the license? And one more question: enforcement unfortunately has bad connotations. How would you like to see compliance handled? The question you should ask is How much do you value your intellectual property? Depends. Some fonts i value more than others, but ultimately i am not over precious about them. They are designed to be free (as in bird, and freedom), so i guess i most value the freedom aspect of their intellectual property value. I think 'enforcement' and 'compliance' would only become an issue if free fonts software started showing up in proprietary fonts, tbh. -vern
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Treatment of the OFL in the wild
I'm sure i saw an in-house blog post about the collaboration work with Omnibus on Rosario too. Worth looking for again. -v On 4 Jun 2013, at 19:02, Pablo Impallari impall...@gmail.com wrote: Good News: Pablo Cosgaya asked Typekit to correct the Rosario page, and they have made the changes accordingly. Now Omnibus Type is properly credited: https://typekit.com/fonts/rosario +1 to Adobe/Typekit for fixing the meta-data.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Treatment of the OFL in the wild
On 5 June 2013 04:39, Manuel Schmalstieg web...@ms-studio.net wrote: I also sent them this tweet. Perhaps it helped to pressurize from several fronts :) https://twitter.com/greyscalepress/status/340461699654090752 They don't need the pressure - as Victor has said, they are keen to do the right thing, although they may be a little slow sometimes as they are a bit understaffed (as with GF - there's just me)
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Treatment of the OFL in the wild
I believe these lawsuits are currently the most profitable business model for font copyright holders.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Treatment of the OFL in the wild
Dave - Haha, but not sure if you are joking or not :) @Rich - I know what you mean, but i see things more round the another way. I'm more interested in getting more and more freely available fonts into the hands of more users, rather than creating fonts that are more legal object than typographic object. Some large foundries have started distributing Free fonts. It's a good start, but I wish it was being done in a way that made the fonts even more free. I'm more interested in how fonts can be designed that can be as free as possible, even when they are simply embedded or only distributed as chopped up woff files. -v On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:50, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote: I believe these lawsuits are currently the most profitable business model for font copyright holders.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Re: Treatment of the OFL in the wild
Good News: Pablo Cosgaya asked Typekit to correct the Rosario page, and they have made the changes accordingly. Now Omnibus Type is properly credited: https://typekit.com/fonts/rosario +1 to Adobe/Typekit for fixing the meta-data. 2013/6/4 Thomas Phinney tphin...@cal.berkeley.edu LOL! I hope Dave is joking, but I worry that even if he is, folks might take him seriously. It would be a mistake to think that these lawsuits are a major profit source for font copyright holders, or a major part of Frank Martinez's business. I've talked to most of the people Frank has represented in these lawsuits, about their lawsuits. I have also met with Frank on a fair number of occasions, including the last time I was in New York. In recent years he has probably averaged ~ one such lawsuit per year. Pretty much all have settled out of court for undisclosed terms. Given the amount of underlicensed and unlicensed font use out there, one lawsuit a year in the USA is nothing. Clearly, suing is being used as a last resort, when all else fails, and even then only in a small minority of cases. It should be self-evident that we would see a lot more of them if such lawsuits were a fabulous cash cow. Many, probably most of the font copyright holders—who are generally type designers themselves—really do not seem to care for the legal action at all, and would much rather be designing typefaces or otherwise engaging in what they see as the “real” business of making and selling fonts. Sure, they don’t like seeing people/organizations with deep pockets “get away” with using their fonts without compensation, but most of them have long since learned that the amount of work involved in really chasing them is disproportionate to both any sense of victory they might get in the end, and to any financial reward. That being said, there are limits to what people can stomach. One very high profile case was reported as if it were a new incident, but the foundry told me that in fact this was the culmination of ten YEARS of dealing with the company in question and trying to get them to pay for the fonts they were using, and generally being ignored and blown off. Cheers, T On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote: I believe these lawsuits are currently the most profitable business model for font copyright holders. -- -- Google Font Directory Discussions http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Font Directory Discussions group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- “‘Kindness’ covers all of my political beliefs.” —Roger Ebert -- -- Google Font Directory Discussions http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Font Directory Discussions group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Un Abrazo Pablo Impallari
