> You know, we have the situation at present where at least one major corp
is using my fonts in their services
> They are modifying and using the RFN without agreement from me.
I have the same concerns as Vernon.
I'm getting the feeling that removing the RFM will allow Adobe and MT to do
whatever
Oh i see what you are saying now :)
Yes of course.
But the OFL prevents that particular freedom.
I've never understood the rationale of that aspect of the OFL.
Are you suggesting that restriction be removed from the OFL?
-vern
On 22 May 2013, at 17:15, Barry Schwartz
wrote:
> Free software can
The RFN can have an integral role in how a designer can preserve or enhance a
certain type of freedom for a font. Or it simply restrict a font's freedom. I'm
still arguing with myself about it :)
Reserving the name of the font, sets down a licensing condition that must be
met. If that condition
Why do you think the font name is so important that to keep using it
those evil corporations will go out of their ways and sign deals with
you? (not to mention that it is the copyleft part of OFL that ensures
preservation of font freedom, not the RFN part).
Regards,
Khaled
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at
Erm…
I think it, because i see clear evidence of it :)
The RFN part was probably not conceived as a copyleft component of the OFL. My
point though, is that it can (under certain circumstances) also be used to
preserve certain freedoms, more than it may ever restrict freedoms.
Do you see that t
On 23 May 2013 16:49, Vernon Adams wrote:
> The RFN part was probably not conceived as a copyleft
> component of the OFL. My point though, is that it can (under
> certain circumstances) also be used to preserve certain freedoms,
> more than it may ever restrict freedoms.
What freedoms?
> Do you
FRN, IMO, puts unnecessary restrictions on users of libre fonts to solve
and just complicates things (more so on the web) for no to very marginal
benefit. What issues FRN is trying to solve are half technical; change
in font metrics can cause text reflow, but technical issues ask for
technical not
On 23 May 2013 17:12, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> The other half is the artistic integrity,
> which I, obviously, find it all nonsense
Since many libre software projects use trademarks to maintain the
integrity of their name, I don't find the
artistic-work/functional-work distinction relevant here (alt
On 23 May 2013 07:46, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
> With some free software you have the freedom to sell it, to
Generally FOSS means freedom to sell it for any purpose. That the OFL
restricts selling and that the FSF and OSI have approved it as a free
software/open source license is surprising, and le
Hi!
On 23 May 2013 16:21, Vernon Adams wrote:
> The RFN can have an integral role in how a designer can preserve
> or enhance a certain type of freedom for a font. Or it simply restrict
> font's freedom. I'm still arguing with myself about it :)
:)
> Reserving the name of the font, sets down a
>
>
>> Reserving the name of the font, sets down a licensing condition
>> that must be met. If that condition is not met then the license is breached.
>> This is clear when dealing with 1 or 2 a large corporations (who may
>> not be interested in preserving the font's freedom); as it gives 3 cle
On 23 May 2013, at 08:10, Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 23 May 2013 16:49, Vernon Adams wrote:
>> The RFN part was probably not conceived as a copyleft
>> component of the OFL. My point though, is that it can (under
>> certain circumstances) also be used to preserve certain freedoms,
>> more than
I challenge Khaleds slightly 'straw man' comment :)
Fonts are functional utilities that include 'art work'. The fact that the 'art
work' of fonts may not be part of your interest in them, does not separate
function and art in fonts.
Ps - art work is functional utility too. It's a subset of the w
On 23 May 2013 02:43, Vernon Adams wrote:
> Not sure i understand 100% what you are saying :)
> specifically - "Free software can be charged for; otherwise it is not free
> as in
> freedom"
> is there a 'not' missing?
No :)
Free software can be sold. Freedom to redistribute for a fee is one of
I'm _generally_ in favor of pursuing the trademark front as an alternative
to RFN (although obviously at this point it's a bit experimental). I
wonder, though, if recommending trademarks would be problematic because of
the differences in trademark law between jurisdictions.
I don't know global TM
On 23 May 2013, at 09:36, Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 23 May 2013 02:43, Vernon Adams wrote:
>> Not sure i understand 100% what you are saying :)
>> specifically - "Free software can be charged for; otherwise it is not free
>> as in
>> freedom"
>> is there a 'not' missing?
>
> No :)
>
> Free
Dave Crossland
> On 23 May 2013 07:46, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
> > With some free software you have the freedom to sell it, to
>
> Generally FOSS means freedom to sell it for any purpose. That the OFL
> restricts selling and that the FSF and OSI have approved it as a free
> software/open source l
On 05/23/2013 07:36 PM, Nathan Willis wrote:
I'm _generally_ in favor of pursuing the trademark front as an
alternative to RFN (although obviously at this point it's a bit
experimental). I wonder, though, if recommending trademarks would be
problematic because of the differences in trademark law
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Eric Schrijver wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 07:36 PM, Nathan Willis wrote:
>
>> I'm _generally_ in favor of pursuing the trademark front as an
>> alternative to RFN (although obviously at this point it's a bit
>> experimental). I wonder, though, if recommending trademar
On 23 May 2013, at 10:56, Pablo Impallari wrote:
> > You know, we have the situation at present where at least one major corp is
> > using my fonts in their services
> > They are modifying and using the RFN without agreement from me.
>
> I have the same concerns as Vernon.
> I'm getting the fee
20 matches
Mail list logo
