2008/11/16 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>- MIT/X11/Expat (much better than PD)
>>
>>As long as we're being dogmatic, I think we should recommend Expat and
>>not mention MIT, X11, modified BSD, ISC, etc., etc. Expat is the only
>>one of that family which has an unambiguous name and meaning. (Again,
2008/11/16 Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I think that could *appeal* to a young 'designer' part of our
> potential community/"audience". But could put off older, gentler,
> parts, so maybe not best.
Actually, much better, I suggest we use this:
> DO WHAT YOU WANT TO FONT LICEN
Personally, I used to think OFL everywhere would be the future, but I've
come to realise its non-copyleft orientation and all its
renaming/fontlog requirements would never make it acceptable for a large
number of the font projects I follow.
In other words the OFL bent backwards too much to please
> The "positioning" of our recommended licenses is crucial. I think
> overtly we only recommend the OFL, but on the upload form we have 4
> license choices: "a free license (moderation)" "OFL" "$permissive
> license" "GPL-OFLB-style"
>
> I think all these funny named licenses mean nothing to most
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Personally, I used to think OFL everywhere would be the future, but I've
> come to realise its non-copyleft orientation and all its
> renaming/fontlog requirements would never make it acceptable for a large
> number of the font projects I follow.
Let me point out that the
hi all
i put up a blog 2 weeks ago to open discussions on my semester project.
(the creation of an original typeface for the open font library)
i haven't had much feedback…
but that's why it is online! and that's also why i adressed to you
people.
take a look and share thoughts / references
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 18:10 +0100, Jeremy Schorderet a écrit :
> hi all
Hi Jeremy
> i put up a blog 2 weeks ago to open discussions on my semester project.
> (the creation of an original typeface for the open font library)
Quite honestly if you insist on posting about a blog without giv
On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 15:06 +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
[Dave Crossland wrote:]
> > "Public Domain" is recognised in every day language.
>
> In which language, in which jurisdiction? To mean what exactly?
To put this another way (and I have very limited exposure to
international copyright la
> DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
>Version 2, December 2004
>
>Copyright (C) 2004 Your Name
>Your, Address, Some, Place, Nice.
>Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
>copies of this license document, and changing it is allow
Since it has an advertising clause, it's kinda like the unmodified BSD
license.
Wrong. Expat (and many other licenses) say that a certain name must
*not* be used in advertising. That is ok. The unmodified BSD was
GPL-incompatible because it said a certain name must actively *be* used
Christopher Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know about the US but if you publish a font in the UK, or
> another European country, I think you may want something more than a
> license designed for software. This should also apply to licenses for
> free/open source fonts.
No, a license
El Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:30:50 +
"Dave Crossland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> 2008/11/14 minombresbond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > I would like to contribute with the translation of some section of
> > the ofl wiki to spanish, How can I do?
> > sorry if the answer is already on the wiki!
>
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 18:16 -0600, Karl Berry a écrit :
> Since it has an advertising clause, it's kinda like the unmodified BSD
> license.
>
> Wrong. Expat (and many other licenses) say that a certain name must
> *not* be used in advertising. That is ok. The unmodified BSD was
13 matches
Mail list logo
