Hi,
Thanks Ed!
Since there are now many CC-BY or BY-SA fonts, should we accept these too?
Regards, Dave
On 15 Jul 2009, 4:21 AM, Ed Trager ed.tra...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, all,
In reply to Dave's question, under the src/licenses subdirectory in
Fontaine's code tree we find:
I believe it should be Public Domain, CC-Zero, OFL, and
GPLv3-orLater+FE, but I forget if we reached a consensus when this was
discussed previously.
The consensus we had reached was that we'd focus on font-specific
licenses and limit the library to only:
MIT, OFL and GPLv3+font-exception
we
2009/7/15 Nicolas Spalinger nicolas_spalin...@sil.org:
I believe it should be Public Domain, CC-Zero, OFL, and
GPLv3-orLater+FE, but I forget if we reached a consensus when this was
discussed previously.
The consensus we had reached was that we'd focus on font-specific
licenses and limit the
2009/7/15 Daniel Glassey dglas...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Dave Crosslandd...@lab6.com wrote:
http://openfontlibrary.org/2009-06_12_OFLB_devtalk.mp3 22Mb
I think you mean
http://openfontlibrary.org/2009-07-12_OFLB_devtalk.mp3 as that is what
you mention in the other
2009/7/15 Nicolas Spalinger nicolas_spalin...@sil.org:
Since there are now many CC-BY or BY-SA fonts, should we accept these too?
Many?
http://fontstruct.fontshop.com/gallery has produced hundreds.
I strongly recommend we tell people using CC combinations to use
font-specific licenses for
Hi, Nicolas,
(1) I'll work on chasing down the deprecated licenses you mention.
This is straightforward to do.
(2) The CC Licenses are actually the ones that I find most confusing
... Could someone provide me the names and links to actual fonts
licensed under CC licenses so I can see what the
Hi,
I mirrored http://fontstruct.fontshop.com/download/7294 at
http://dave.lab6.com/acid/dump/2009/structurosa.zip
CC licenses require their URL to be present in the file, and the CC
URL design is top rate, so searching fonts for these 4 URLs should be
the most reliable way to do it:
Hi, Nicolas,
(1) I'll work on chasing down the deprecated licenses you mention.
This is straightforward to do.
Some of them such as Stix should not be used anymore
Others like GUST are sort of ok in an evil way, but GUST people tend to
make very bad licensing choices so I'd audit carefully
Ed Trager wrote:
Hi, Nicolas,
(1) I'll work on chasing down the deprecated licenses you mention.
This is straightforward to do.
Great.
I meant deprecated as in project-.org-specific and not neutral and
reusable like MIT/OFL/GPLv2+FE.
This may save you some time:
I meant deprecated as in project-.org-specific and not neutral and
reusable like MIT/OFL/GPLv2+FE.
Hum, I really meant GPLv3 there.
--
Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary
http://planet.open-fonts.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Nicolas
Spalingernicolas_spalin...@sil.org wrote:
Ed Trager wrote:
Hi, Nicolas,
(1) I'll work on chasing down the deprecated licenses you mention.
This is straightforward to do.
Great.
Do the Adobe-licensed-to-TeX Utopia fonts exist in a TrueType or
Hi, Nicolas (Mailhot),
Vollkorn
http://www.grafikfritze.de/?p=43
This appears to be a very nice font. The web page says its under a CC
license -- but which one?
In any case, the License field within the font itself only says
Copyright (c) FRiTZe, 2006. All rights reserved. So Fontaine can
Hi, Nicolas (Mailhot),
Vollkorn
http://www.grafikfritze.de/?p=43
This appears to be a very nice font. The web page says its under a CC
license -- but which one?
The license is linked on the font homepage
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/de/
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Ed Trager wrote:
Hi, Nicolas (Mailhot),
Vollkorn
http://www.grafikfritze.de/?p=43
This appears to be a very nice font. The web page says its under a CC
license -- but which one?
In any case, the License field within the font itself only says
Copyright (c) FRiTZe, 2006. All rights
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:28:28AM -0400, Ed Trager wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Nicolas
Do the Adobe-licensed-to-TeX Utopia fonts exist in a TrueType or
OpenType packaging? Fontaine's current code looks only at the SFNT
structures in TrueType/OpenType fonts. Would anyone
Hi, Nicolas et al.,
Do the Adobe-licensed-to-TeX Utopia fonts exist in a TrueType or
OpenType packaging?
Heuristica is a transformation to OpenType (CFF TT)
ftp://ftp.dvo.ru/pub/Font/heuristica/
It's been relicensed to the OFL, which seemed compatible with the TUG
grant when we looked
Hi, Nicolas et al.,
Do the Adobe-licensed-to-TeX Utopia fonts exist in a TrueType or
OpenType packaging?
Heuristica is a transformation to OpenType (CFF TT)
ftp://ftp.dvo.ru/pub/Font/heuristica/
It's been relicensed to the OFL, which seemed compatible with the TUG
grant when we
how can I unsubscribe from this mailing list?
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:09, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Hi, Nicolas et al.,
Do the Adobe-licensed-to-TeX Utopia fonts exist in a TrueType or
OpenType packaging?
Heuristica is a transformation to OpenType (CFF TT)
The Yanone fonts have a similar problem: web page says CC (Generic
CC) but the font header only says
Copyright (c) Yanone, 2005. All rights reserved.
... so the font file itself fails to identify a license as far as I can see.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:09 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net
The Yanone fonts have a similar problem: web page says CC (Generic
CC) but the font header only says
Copyright (c) Yanone, 2005. All rights reserved.
... so the font file itself fails to identify a license as far as I can
see.
It's linked on the homepage and included in the zip :p
I'd
2009/7/15 Nicolas Spalinger nicolas_spalin...@sil.org:
only attribution (and German jurisdiction).
CC jurisdictions are portable; the license texts say that you can
switch to the same CC license of your jurisdiction when you derive.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
The Yanone fonts have a similar problem: web page says CC (Generic
CC) but the font header only says
Copyright (c) Yanone, 2005. All rights reserved.
... so the font file itself fails to identify a license as far as I
Hi Ed,
In the project-and-organisation-specific deprecated category we may want
to add detection for the following licensing models:
- Utopia
- Baekmuk
... Baekmuk font files also do not identify the license in any clear
way ... :-(
- GUST
- Hershey
- Lucida
- Stix
- Wadalab
- mplus
Hi all,
Interesting problem:
1. TTF/OTF font files are licensed individually (or rather, each has a
license field)
2. CCHost's upload form prompts the user to specify a license per
typeface record
I think 2. is actually desirable from a user point of view but 1. is
what's in the files (and
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 06:02:55PM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:28:28AM -0400, Ed Trager wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Nicolas
Do the Adobe-licensed-to-TeX Utopia fonts exist in a TrueType or
OpenType packaging? Fontaine's current
2009/7/15 Ben Weiner b...@readingtype.org.uk:
Hi all,
Interesting problem:
1. TTF/OTF font files are licensed individually (or rather, each has a
license field)
2. CCHost's upload form prompts the user to specify a license per typeface
record
I think 2. is actually desirable from a user
Le mercredi 15 juillet 2009 à 19:52 +0300, Khaled Hosny a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 06:02:55PM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:28:28AM -0400, Ed Trager wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Nicolas
Do the Adobe-licensed-to-TeX Utopia
Hi, Nicolas,
Hi Ed,
In the project-and-organisation-specific deprecated category we may want
to add detection for the following licensing models:
- Utopia
ADDED TO FONTAINE. TESTED USING HEURISTICA FONT FAMILY.
- Baekmuk
*NOT* ADDED. BAEKMUK FONT FILES DO NOT MENTION THE LICENSE ...
-
Le mercredi 15 juillet 2009 à 15:12 -0400, Ed Trager a écrit :
- GUST
*NOT* ADDED. Are there any GUST fonts in TTF or OTF format?
Lots
http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/whole
Though unfortunately they derived GPL ghostscript fonts and slapped
their own license on the
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 08:19:30PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 15 juillet 2009 à 19:52 +0300, Khaled Hosny a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 06:02:55PM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:28:28AM -0400, Ed Trager wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15,
Hi, Khaled,
I'm not sure in what sense using Type1 fonts would screw up the rest of
the system. TeX fonts has always been a different territory, and aren't
supposed to integrate with the rest of the system anyway. Technically
speaking, TeX is frozen and will never get updated, Even though
OK, everyone,
Fontaine revision 29 now adds GUST font license detection too ...
Best - Ed
2009/7/15 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net:
Le mercredi 15 juillet 2009 à 15:12 -0400, Ed Trager a écrit :
- GUST
*NOT* ADDED. Are there any GUST fonts in TTF or OTF format?
Lots
Hi,
If the tex community needs type 1 fonts, I think CTAN is the appropriate
place for them. OFLB is aimed at graphic artists, and they strongly prefer
ttf/otf. Id like CTAN to consume OFLB and automate the TeXification in the
future.
So I think OFLB should reject Type 1 fonts.
Regards, Dave
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
