On 30 June 2010 13:47, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> please use the CC licence
> that was written for public-domain-like needs
http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/
Le mercredi 30 juin 2010 à 13:35 -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One a
écrit :
> I realize this approach may not be for everyone, but after thinking
> about the matter at some length I ended up releasing the font I
> created (Blooming Grove) into the public domain.
If you want something akin to pu
Barry Schwartz writes:
> What matters is that the fonts are free software -- not freeware. I
> myself have been reluctant to accept the OFL in part because it has
> that restriction on unbundled selling. If that weren't a provision
> with a loophole a couple of parsecs wide, I probably wouldn't m
vernon adams skribis:
> The onus is on open, not free. That seems to be in line with the oflb.
> It's secondary that the software is free (as in ££$$).
"Open" is almost worthless when it comes to fonts; it is uncommon to
find a font that isn't in a fixable and modifiable. Sure, it would be
nice t
The onus is on open, not free. That seems to be in line with the oflb.
It's secondary that the software is free (as in ££$$).
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:20 -0500, Barry Schwartz wrote:
>
> It's not at all clear that the site has anything to do with free
> software. The name of the site adds to the
Dave Crossland skribis:
> So the text by the icons at the top saying "Get: Download Fonts,
> Share: Upload Your Fonts, Remix: Improve & Extend" isn't clear
> enough... okay.
It's not at all clear that the site has anything to do with free
software. The name of the site adds to the confusion betwe
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 01:57 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
[...]
> So the text by the icons at the top saying "Get: Download Fonts,
> Share: Upload Your Fonts, Remix: Improve & Extend" isn't clear
> enough... okay.
The first thing I see on the page is an ugly red rectangle with,
Help the Open Font L
The message I saw earlier today--and it's still there now--was
This domain is for sale.
Please contact doma...@zou.info
I'll chip in if it's not too expensive.
Peter
On Thursday, June 10, 2010, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 15:59 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>> I have oflb.o
On 10 June 2010 17:05, Liam R E Quin wrote:
>
> No. You'll be in the same situation, oflb.com is registered to
> someone in San Francisco... Unless you can buy it.
I have made enquiries about .com, and .net and .org are ours.
> Number one priority seems to me to get a working Web site,
> with pr
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 15:59 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
> I have oflb.org and I redirect it to openfontlibrary.org.
>
> We could do the opposite of this, to reduce confusion with
> openfontlibrary.{net,com}
No. You'll be in the same situation, oflb.com is registered to
someone in San Francisco
good suggestion!
+1
On 6/10/10, Dave Crossland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have oflb.org and I redirect it to openfontlibrary.org.
>
> We could do the opposite of this, to reduce confusion with
> openfontlibrary.{net,com}
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards, Dave
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.co
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Dave Crossland wrote:
Hi,
I have oflb.org and I redirect it to openfontlibrary.org.
We could do the opposite of this, to reduce confusion with
openfontlibrary.{net,com}
Thoughts?
Good idea!
Apostolos
Yes, grab oflb.com too.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have oflb.org and I redirect it to openfontlibrary.org.
>
> We could do the opposite of this, to reduce confusion with
> openfontlibrary.{net,com}
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards, Dave
Hi,
I have oflb.org and I redirect it to openfontlibrary.org.
We could do the opposite of this, to reduce confusion with
openfontlibrary.{net,com}
Thoughts?
Regards, Dave
On Tuesday 04 November 2008, Dave Crossland wrote:
> I suggest we make all the domains redirect to oflb.org and get that
> promoted as the main URL, then fewer new people will think to go to
> openfontlibrary.com.
I personally don't understand why openfontlibrary.com is a good domain
for public d
Jon Phillips wrote:
> Just because of one person we should change urls? I don't agree
> whatsoever and its bad SEO tech and bad policy to move that easily.
I agree with Rejon here about the SEO part. Having "font" in the domain
name is a good boost for our position in search results.
> Good to h
2008/11/4 Jon Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Good to have other domains, but all you need is one clear canonical url
> and not confuse people.
Okay, cool :-)
___
Openfontlibrary mailing list
Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedeskt
Just because of one person we should change urls? I don't agree
whatsoever and its bad SEO tech and bad policy to move that easily.
Good to have other domains, but all you need is one clear canonical url
and not confuse people.
Jon
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 12:39 +0300, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
>
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've bought these domains just now:
>
> openfontlibrary.info
> oflb.info
> oflb.org
>
> I suggest we make all the domains redirect to oflb.org and get that
> promoted as the main URL
+ easier to type in
- not self-explanatory when yo
Hi,
I've bought these domains just now:
openfontlibrary.info
oflb.info
oflb.org
I suggest we make all the domains redirect to oflb.org and get that
promoted as the main URL, then fewer new people will think to go to
openfontlibrary.com.
Or is that risky? The current domain has some recognition,
20 matches
Mail list logo
