So if the person who is doing the embedding intends for others to be able to
trivially separate out the font, or uses an
embedding process that makes that simple, then they should be sure that the
basic license metadata is also included.
There can be no question of intent here.
The embedded
Nicolas -
When I pushed for Fedora to officially endorse the OFL, it was very clear
in my mind that embedding was still a distribution of the font bits, and
that the OFL embedding clause merely stated there was a requirement
boundary between the embedded font and the rest of the document.
On 7 Jun 2013, at 13:10, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
If you allow intent here, the OFL clauses have no force anymore. At least
that's how I understand the legalities.
Intent is a factor, but not the only one. If the fonts can reasonably and
practically be extracted for
On 7 Jun 2013, at 05:46, Victor Gaultney vt...@gaultney.org wrote:
The terms 'embedding' and 'distribution' have very specific meanings in the
OFL context, and are mutually exclusive. Here is a slightly expand form of
what is said in the FAQ:
Embedding = inclusion of font data solely for
On 7 June 2013 09:23, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
i think the biggest usage of OFL'd fonts today (base 64 encoded
woff files served from a central server to users browsers) seems
to fall into both :) This is what is causing any problems or confusion.
It might _appear_ to be
Le Ven 7 juin 2013 20:23, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
Le Ven 7 juin 2013 15:23, Vernon Adams a écrit :
This i what i pointed at earlier. The OFL defines a font's usage as
either
'embedding' or 'distribution'.
This is irrelevant. As noted during the GPLv3 review process, both
'derivative'
Le Ven 7 juin 2013 20:16, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
The OFL explicitely states that, when bundled with a software (which in
practical terms means the font will be embedded in the software
installer), OFL provisions still apply to the fonts (including keeping
legal notices)
And now that
On 7 June 2013 13:45, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
to convert from my sources to a woff, is a clear 'modification', i would say.
The OFL FAQ and I both disagree with this; WOFF is simply compression,
not modification, and it guarantees 100% that the data you put into
the
On 7 Jun 2013, at 12:21, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
On 7 June 2013 13:45, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
to convert from my sources to a woff, is a clear 'modification', i would say.
The OFL FAQ and I both disagree with this; WOFF is simply compression,
not
On 7 Jun 2013, at 19:48, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
The only sane separation is font bits (embedded,
modified, converted, bundled, rot13ed, or not) and the rest. Font is
whatever derivative part of the original work can be used to render a
single glyph, regardless of
On 6 June 2013 15:13, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
Perhaps some browser developers would be interested in this?
Make an extension.
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:23, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
Perhaps some browser developers would be interested in this?
Make an extension.
= ask others to make an extension
On 6 June 2013 15:33, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:23, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
Perhaps some browser developers would be interested in this?
Make an extension.
= ask others to make an extension
http://code.google.com/p/web-font-downloader/
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
On 6 June 2013 15:33, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:23, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
Perhaps some browser developers would be interested in this?
Make an extension.
=
On 6 June 2013 15:52, Nathan Willis nwil...@glyphography.com wrote:
Kind of wonder why it doesn't
Feature creep is bad, users want less features, options and
preferences by default; that's what extension are for.
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:43, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
http://code.google.com/p/web-font-downloader/ awaits
hurry up then
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
On 6 June 2013 15:52, Nathan Willis nwil...@glyphography.com wrote:
Kind of wonder why it doesn't
Feature creep is bad, users want less features, options and
preferences by default; that's what extension are for.
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:19:28AM -0400, Dave Crossland wrote:
Embedding fonts you can't extract easily is ok too. The point here is that
Web fonts are never embedding, they are always separate resources that are
linked to documents.
And so are fonts embedded in PDF files; you can embed the
On 5 June 2013 08:26, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
Web fonts are never embedding, they are always separate resources that are
linked to documents.
And so are fonts embedded in PDF files
Is it changing the data representation from binary to base64 ascii
encoding that makes for you
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:35:00AM -0400, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 5 June 2013 08:26, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
Web fonts are never embedding, they are always separate resources that are
linked to documents.
And so are fonts embedded in PDF files
Is it changing the data
On 5 Jun 2013, at 05:38, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
On 4 June 2013 12:54, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
(a) webfonts, used by css linkage etc and (b) base64 encoded Woff files
placed in the users browser cache.
(a) works well. (b) really sucks. takes extra effort and
On 5 Jun 2013, at 06:06, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
I personally see the mere use of @font-face as a form of embedding not
distribution
I think it's worth understanding that any use of a Libre font file in the
'public space' is a 'distribution'. That seems to me to be at the
And the OFL definition of 'embedding' is … ?
and does that definition tally with the situation of how fonts are being
distributed via 'embedding' in the real world? and will it likely tally with
the situation in say 2 years?
-vern
On 5 Jun 2013, at 08:46, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
On 5 June 2013 10:28, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
I'm not sure you can, the subsetting is done on the server…
erm.. so… i was right then :) it sucks as a way of enabling fonts as free
and easy to obtain and use ;p
Because it isn't the primary distribution point. The files
On 5 June 2013 11:51, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
And the OFL definition of 'embedding' is … ?
Actually the OFL doesn't define embedding. It says:
5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole,
must be distributed entirely under this license, and must
On 5 Jun 2013, at 16:51, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
And the OFL definition of 'embedding' is … ?
From the FAQ:
Question: 1.11 What do you mean by 'embedding'? How does that differ from other
means of distribution?
Answer: By 'embedding' we mean inclusion of the font in a
On 5 Jun 2013, at 09:17, Victor Gaultney vt...@gaultney.org wrote:
And the OFL definition of 'embedding' is … ?
From the FAQ:
Question: 1.11 What do you mean by 'embedding'? How does that differ from
other means of distribution?
Answer: By 'embedding' we mean inclusion of the font
On 5 June 2013 12:59, vernon adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
from the OFL definition, the uses of OFL fonts by Adobe, Monotype, etc IS
'embedding',
No its not! :)
Its LINKING not embedding. The obfuscation that the FAQ mentions is a
distraction. Web fonts are LINKED unless they are
On 5 June 2013 12:18, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
I see an opportunity to create more distribution points, and have as many
distributions as possible acting as primary distribution points :)
I do not.
Relying on some central, canonical, distro point to be the gatekeeper of
On 5 Jun 2013, at 09:59, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
On 5 June 2013 12:18, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
I see an opportunity to create more distribution points, and have as many
distributions as possible acting as primary distribution points :)
I do not.
You do.
On 5 Jun 2013, at 17:59, vernon adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
from the OFL definition, the uses of OFL fonts by Adobe, Monotype, etc IS
'embedding'...
Uh - not at all. …we mean inclusion of the font in a document or file… The
web fonts paper, again, talks all about this. :-)
And
On 5 Jun 2013, at 11:50, Victor Gaultney vt...@gaultney.org wrote:
from the OFL definition, the uses of OFL fonts by Adobe, Monotype, etc IS
'embedding'...
Uh - not at all. …we mean inclusion of the font in a document or file… The
web fonts paper, again, talks all about this. :-)
Yes.
On 5 June 2013 15:23, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
i feel that the file coming to users from Typekit etc could be a bit more
'informational'.
Can you be more concrete and specific?
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:50:00PM +0100, Victor Gaultney wrote:
then you'll have to talk to Adobe about a new version os PDF.
PDF does, in fact, allow this. You can now even embed full OpenType fonts
since PDF 1.6.
Regards,
Khaled
On 3 Jun 2013, at 20:36, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
I have now contacted font pro.com about this. They promise to remedy the
situation.
Great. This is exactly how the process should work. The community polices
itself. If anyone comes across a service that seems to violate
On 3 Jun 2013, at 23:47, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
You can embed a webfont as base64 encoded string inside the HTML file.
Good point, Khaled. That does sound like traditional embedding. The key
differences from standard web fonts use are that:
- The font is delivered as part
Extracting the fonts is just as easy
On Jun 4, 2013 4:59 AM, Victor Gaultney vt...@gaultney.org wrote:
On 3 Jun 2013, at 23:47, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
You can embed a webfont as base64 encoded string inside the HTML file.
Good point, Khaled. That does sound like
Embedding fonts you can't extract easily is ok too. The point here is that
Web fonts are never embedding, they are always separate resources that are
linked to documents.
On Jun 4, 2013 11:13 AM, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
Are we saying that embedding a font that a user can
On 4 Jun 2013, at 09:27, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
On 4 June 2013 12:05, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
My point is not really to do with licensing (i know fonts can be embedded
under the OFL). But, i'm aware that embedding has not really been seen as a
'best
On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 09:54 -0700, Vernon Adams wrote:
Yes. So how best could embedding also become a better way of spreading them
around?
One way would be if Web browser extensions that identified fonts used in
a Web page also included a link, get this font for myself.
Liam
--
Liam Quin -
40 matches
Mail list logo
