Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
2008/11/3 Brendan Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have joined the development mailing list. Waiting for my fist mail. Which dev list? :-) One note of concern that I will research. If someone starts with a .html file and adds php content, then uploads it and renames it to .php, a script could be executed if the detect script does not register it as a php file I've tested this and it doesn't detect a file as a PHP file if its first bytes are html whlie having ?php echo oops? on the 2nd line. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
In a message dated 11/3/2008 12:33:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, FontFreedom, ... but I really want to have a non-copyleft openfontlibrary. Why? If we are not using copyleft licenses, what are you proposing to use in place? Copy - Center licenses, Such as: The CC-BY License _http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/_ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) The MIT/X11 License Zope Public License (ZPL) The whole reason for copyright law is to provide legal protections to authors of creative works, is it not? We now have enthusiastic communities of authors who recognize the value of giving back to the community, of sharing and remixing creative works. Licenses like SIL's OFL license for fonts have been designed specifically to help these authors protect their works so that they can do what they really want to do with them -- share them with the community! NO! SIL OFL does not allow them to share their fonts in a way which allows others to make modifications to a font, then re-release the font under the license of their own choosing. The right to share a work with others is just as much a legal right as the right to not share a work. The license makes this clear. And, BTW, the original author of a work is, at least under U.S. law as I understand it, free to release his or her work under as many or as few different licenses as s/he wants. So, for example, I could release an original font creation under OFL for the community to use, and still sell it under a commercial license for customers who may want some form of paid support or other service in return for payment. So licenses like the OFL provide clarity in terms of what authors want to allow or disallow. Clarity, yes. A good idea, no. Public Domain on the other hand seems to me very fuzzy and unclear. What legal rights are reserved or not reserved? It's not clear to me. What are the author's wishes? Heck, who even *is* the author of a Public Domain font? Maybe if we knew who the author or authors really are, we would find out that they don't want their fonts under Public Domain once they recognize the advantages and legal protections that copyright law is supposed to provide. I therefore personally think that Public Domain should be discouraged. I certainly would not put anything I created under Public Domain. I would much rather put it under a license that makes it very clear that I want to share my work with the community. CC-PD : Creative Commons - PD is a specific and unified way to dedicate works to the public domain. It's what's been used with many fonts currently in the openfontlibrary. Some people have said their (software, font, clipart, whatever) is public domain, then attached conditions which are totally incompatible with dedicating something to the public domain. Most public domain works do include documentation of who the author(s) are. We should write extensively explaining to people what it means to dedicate a font, or anything to the public domain. - Ed Trager **Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav0001) ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/4 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: designed specifically to help these authors protect their works so that they can do what they really want to do with them -- share them with the community! NO! SIL OFL does not allow them to share their fonts in a way which allows others to make modifications to a font, then re-release the font under the license of their own choosing. If the license they choose is restrictive, why is this a good thing? Doesn't that defeat the original author's intention to share? What is your name, FontFreedom? ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/4 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's what's been used with many fonts currently in the openfontlibrary. Some people have said their (software, font, clipart, whatever) is public domain, then attached conditions which are totally incompatible with dedicating something to the public domain. I would be very careful with that. Many people have uploaded fonts to OFLB and clicked public domain because the license they wanted wasn't available, and said in their description what the real license is. Do not trust the OFLB license labelling. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/4 Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Do not trust the OFLB license labelling. I've updated the site to warn people to check font files themselves, eg, http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/tarzeau/321 ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
[Openfontlibrary] oflb.org and switching domains
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, and while it woudl continue to work transparently, there are other instances where .net and .com are not owned and the unique .org wins... Perhaps its best we just sit tight? Given we have a new visual identity coming, I think a new URL would be good though. And oflb.org would help cement that acronym for visitors and stop confusion with the Open Font License which has OFL staked out IMO :-) -- Regards, Dave ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
[Openfontlibrary] CC-BY(-SA) Fonts
2008/11/4 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The CC-BY License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This license requires attribution - and for any *reuse* or distribution, requires that the original license terms must be made clear to others. Does this mean if someone uses a font under this license to print a book (which could be considered a kind of reuse) that the original license terms must be printed or indicated in the book? Does there have to be an attribution? This is an important point, especially since the FontShop's http://fontstruct.fontshop.com webapp has enabled a lot of people to make fonts and publish them with CC-BY(-SA) licenses. Section 4 of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode is: -- 8 -- 4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions: A. You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested. If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested. B. If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution (Attribution Parties) in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Section 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., French translation of the Work by Original Author, or Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author). The credit required by this Section 4 (b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties. C. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation,
Re: [Openfontlibrary] openfontlibrary.com
2008/11/4 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The re-use of name logo is at best bad form... Its a sad move, they could use something else, I suggest them publicfonts as the name :) We need developers! Yes he certainly does, :) All the best, as mentioned in mails above. -- H IRC : HFactor | Phone : 09496346709 | PGP : 4634C034 | W : http://hiran.in ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
Sounds like you are an expert around here :-) But I have not done any coding in 4 years.. Brendan ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
Hi, Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/3 Brendan Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Getting the file onto the server is the first big step in launching an attack. We can set the webserver to send files for download, so neither the webserver or webbrowser will interpret them. So could we accept all files, but make them only for download, and tell site visitors to report problems to us if there are dodgy files? http://www.thingy-ma-jig.co.uk/blog/06-08-2007/force-a-pdf-to-download explains how to do this for *.pdf files in a case insensitive, cross-browser way. This download-as-dumb-data policy, combined with ccHost's file-verification capabilities seems adequate to me. I do see the potential for attacks based on the contents of an upload, but why should we accept uploaded HTML files and why should we allow any uploaded file to be executed by Apache? I believe what is needed is this: - accept upload as either loose files or an archive (.tgz, .zip, perhaps .7zip and .bzip) - if this is a new typeface, create a directory for it inside the user's directory - unarchive everything once the archive has been uploaded, *replacing any files with the same name* And then have download links for each individual file and a .tgz (or perhaps better a .zip) for the whole directory. That's different in detail to what ccHost does right now, but it's compatible in spirit. It also leaves the way open for access via special URLs for package maintaining scripts or whatever with no need for human intervention. Cheers, Ben ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
We can set the webserver to send files for download, so neither the webserver or webbrowser will interpret them. I imagine that even if the files are set for download, they will be interpreted. If say I setup a GIF for PHP to run through it, and then force the download header, it will probably download a intreated GIF. Now if you changed the type of file to say text, this might work... Probably. But you will not be able to view any of the images any more, the browser would be treating them like text. :( There is apache configs that can disable PHP and CGI directory specific though. I just spent some time plying with them. It seems as though we will have to put them in our own server config files. They are not universally accepted in .htaccess files. I can see if I can change the permissions of the files that are uploaded so there is read and write access, but not execution access. Not sure if this will work, but worth a try. Other than that, we will just have to rely on our blacklist, which should also disable some windows executables to prevent people from uploading viruses, which will not effect the server, but when downloaded could effect the clients. Another option, which I am really not up to coding, would be to rename the files when they are downloaded and use a database to connect all the original file names with the randomly generated file names we rename them all to. Then we never link directly to any file, but use a script to send the files when they are asked for. This way even if someone got something ugly up on to the server, and they did some how have execution permissions, they would not know what file to call. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 08:20 +, Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/3 Ed Trager [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The PHP getId3() library is at http://getid3.sourceforge.net/. It might be worth looking into how to expand this library to recognize the TTF and OTF file headers, perhaps? The idea here seems quite similar to what the *Nix file command does. If someone were to look at the *nix file command source code, I bet you could fairly easily find a reference to the magic file header bytes that are used to detect TTF/OTF files and then add this to the getId3() stuff, assuming that getId3() is well-written. Ben Weiner has been looking at ways to extract metadata from font files directly, but I think he gave up because he couldn't complete it in the time he had to allocate to it. He was looking at the TTX tools for this, I think. Anyway, since none of our files have ID3 tags inside them, it seems to me that OFLB can get rid of getID3() and replace it with a PHP wrapper around the file command, perhaps combined with TTX. getID3() reads/writes metadata to diff. file formats with standard type of metadata per format and not just ID3...that is just for mp3. The project has a bad misleading name ;) Jon ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] openfontlibrary.com
Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Rob Myers wrote: Is the name a problem, project identity-wise? I do foresee general confusion, but I won't argue over that till I'm blue in the face. I have better things to do. I just hope that initiator of the second project is a reasonable person who won't put spokes into our wheels just because we are driving copyleft-path way and thus will use these domains only for redirecting to somewhere else :-) Alexandre I also hope there will be a reasonable resolution to this with no bad consequences for the momentum of the OFLB. The re-use of name logo is at best bad form... -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] openfontlibrary.com
Nicolas Spalinger wrote: I also hope there will be a reasonable resolution to this with no bad consequences for the momentum of the OFLB. The re-use of name logo is at best bad form... A breach of copyright :-)? He says: We felt a split, and/or rebellion was needed. although, as far as I can tell, we is a single person. We need developers! Yes he certainly does, there is so far not a single non-copyleft PD font - or any other kind of font - on the openfontlibrary.com site. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
I disagree. We make it clear what fonts should be under. And, if one submits their fonts and not under the terms allowed, we should delete the fonts and/or look to support the option if their is sufficient uptake for the license after review. The last thing we need is license proliferation, spreading more confusion to users of the site, and incompatibilities between uploaded fonts. The other option is to add a custom field for selecting your own, like what google code project does. We have to ask ourselves the question: take a stand on the licenses, or allow for as many fonts and their licensing quirks as possible, and possible problems. ASIDE: This is one of the reasons why on OCAL we did go only PD ;) I'm not arguing for it. So, we often debate this, but we should come to some general consensus about the goal(s) of the site: * allow as many fonts as possible and develop thriving font community, but with possible confusion * take a stand and allow for only the major 2-3 font license + PD options to serve as beacon of font freedom. Others are doing the great font site well already, but no one does these two options, and I would argue this project is best served as the font community for FLOSSD world. However, one could say that if that is true, we should allow for all fonts possible from FLOSSD and either allow for font licenses or push the font licenses determined as best suited to foster non-proliferation. Ok, this is becoming a new thread. ;) FontFreedom man, you can take credit at least for getting us to talk about these things :) Jon On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 09:24 +, Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/4 Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Do not trust the OFLB license labelling. I've updated the site to warn people to check font files themselves, eg, http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/tarzeau/321 ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
Hi, Chris, Releasing a font under GPL or OFL license simply ensures the font can freely be used or modified by anyone and that no one can claim proprietary or commercial rights. If somebody does want a similar font to sell under a commercial license I'm perfectly willing to develop one for them for a fair price. Regarding no one can claim proprietary or commercial rights, I believe that is actually not quite the case under U.S. copyright law, as I understand it. As the original font author, I believe that you yourself have the right to sell your own font under as many different licenses as you want, commercial as well as FLOSS. Dual Licensing appears to be becoming fairly common in the FLOSS software world. Commercial entities often ask for a commercial license from FLOSS vendors because their lawyers like that better, I guess. Maybe it is the liability thing -- a commercial entity does not want to be accused of stealing someone's software or font, open source or otherwise, so they want to negotiate payment for use. So you actually don't have to develop a separate font -- you can use the same one you have already developed and sell it if you have buyers. For something like Jomolhari, I'm sure there is a market. Best - Ed ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] openfontlibrary.com
2008/11/4 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The re-use of name logo is at best bad form... A breach of copyright :-)? Well, trademark :-) We need developers! Yes he certainly does, LOL ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/3/2008 12:33:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, FontFreedom, ... but I really want to have a non-copyleft openfontlibrary. Why? If we are not using copyleft licenses, what are you proposing to use in place? Copy - Center licenses, Such as: The CC-BY License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This license requires attribution - and for any *reuse* or distribution, requires that the original license terms must be made clear to others. Does this mean if someone uses a font under this license to print a book (which could be considered a kind of reuse) that the original license terms must be printed or indicated in the book? Does there have to be an attribution? The MIT/X11 License As a font developer why should I particularly want to let anyone sublicense, and/or sell copies of a font they got freely from me? I'm happy to share or but I don't particularly want anyone sub licensing or distributing copies for profit. Zope Public License (ZPL) As a font developer why would I ever want to use a license which states This software consists of contributions made by Zope Corporation - I don't even know who they are and the Zope Corporation didn't contribute to any font software I made. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/4 Jon Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 09:24 +, Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/4 Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Do not trust the OFLB license labelling. I've updated the site to warn people to check font files themselves I disagree. We make it clear what fonts should be under. And, if one submits their fonts and not under the terms allowed, we should delete the fonts and/or look to support the option if their is sufficient uptake for the license after review. Okay, i've removd those changes, and looked at all the PD fonts on the site; only 3 had descriptions saying they were under a different license, and I've revmoed/updated them to OFL accordingly. Quick thought: I'd recommend we consider having an upload policy that encourages *authors themselves* to upload their own fonts and if others who are not authors post a font it should be clearly marked as such (on behalf of or something like that) and indicate who the upstream author is and provide a link to the upstream site when it exists. A tickbox I have checked that this font isn't violating any author rights or similar could be useful IMHO. Another policy item to separate ourselves from the gazillion freeware font sites... -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO! SIL OFL does not allow them to share their fonts in a way which allows others to make modifications to a font, then re-release the font under the license of their own choosing. As the developer of a font on OFLB (Jomolhari) I don't mind others modifying my font, and sharing that font with others. I certainly don't want anyone making minor modifications and then re-releasing the font under the license of their own choosing which could be a restrictive commercial license. That font took a year to create - time for which I was not paid in any way and during which I had to meet all of my own expenses out of my own pocket. It was my choice to spend a year doing this and also my choice to make the resulting font available for others to use without any charge and to be free to modify or convert the font to other formats. However I don't want to see any version of that font being sold for profit or falling under a commercial or proprietary license - or someone making minor modifications and copyrighting them. That would just be allowing someone else to cynically take financial advantage of all my hard work without doing much of anything themselves or it could mean that I couldn't make some improvement in my own font because someone might claim the improvement was already copyright. I'm would be foolish to donate land for a public park without ensuring that and noone could come along, erect a small fence and claim it as their own personal or commercial property. Releasing a font under GPL or OFL license simply ensures the font can freely be used or modified by anyone and that no one can claim proprietary or commercial rights. If somebody does want a similar font to sell under a commercial license I'm perfectly willing to develop one for them for a fair price. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
2008/11/4 Brendan Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is not really my area of expertise. I was primarily a php programmer who made websites, content management systems and such. Also did website design using DHTML and Usability. Sounds like you are an expert around here :-) The extent of unix i know is to get my web servers up and running on my own boxes. :-) ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] oflb.org and switching domains
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 you see it , then fewer new people will think to go to openfontlibrary.com. Just because of that? Are we *afraid* already? :-) Alexandre ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
2008/11/4 Brendan Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Say, will any of the font source files read like a unix script file with #!/ as the first bits of information in the file? Maybe. There is a font on OFLB now that is a SFD and has a makeOTF.sh file uploaded too. I forget which one though :( ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] oflb.org and switching domains
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 domain fonts only. Open always has been a word used for *all* OSS licenses. If the person insists on having an OFLB fork, he should consider moving to something like pdfontlibrary or whatever, since visitors will be disappointed if the most used open software licenses can't be used. Second issue, he's free to do with his domain since he owns it, but at least play it nice and don't give it the same name, look and logo as the true OFLB. And always have in big letters on the front page that it's not the same project. Ben ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] oflb.org and switching domains
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 have other domains, but all you need is one clear canonical url and not confuse people. -- nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org my cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/ my clipart collection: http://clipart.nicubunu.ro/ ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
2008/11/4 Jon Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 09:24 +, Dave Crossland wrote: 2008/11/4 Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Do not trust the OFLB license labelling. I've updated the site to warn people to check font files themselves I disagree. We make it clear what fonts should be under. And, if one submits their fonts and not under the terms allowed, we should delete the fonts and/or look to support the option if their is sufficient uptake for the license after review. Okay, i've removd those changes, and looked at all the PD fonts on the site; only 3 had descriptions saying they were under a different license, and I've revmoed/updated them to OFL accordingly. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] ccHost compression
2008/11/3 Ed Trager [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The PHP getId3() library is at http://getid3.sourceforge.net/. It might be worth looking into how to expand this library to recognize the TTF and OTF file headers, perhaps? The idea here seems quite similar to what the *Nix file command does. If someone were to look at the *nix file command source code, I bet you could fairly easily find a reference to the magic file header bytes that are used to detect TTF/OTF files and then add this to the getId3() stuff, assuming that getId3() is well-written. Ben Weiner has been looking at ways to extract metadata from font files directly, but I think he gave up because he couldn't complete it in the time he had to allocate to it. He was looking at the TTX tools for this, I think. Anyway, since none of our files have ID3 tags inside them, it seems to me that OFLB can get rid of getID3() and replace it with a PHP wrapper around the file command, perhaps combined with TTX. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
However I don't want to see any version of that font being sold for profit The OFL does allow selling fonts, both the original and a modified version (otherwise it would not be a free license). For instance, there are OFL'd fonts in the TeX Live distribution, and we (the TeX Users Group) make a DVD of it, and offer that DVD for sale. The restriction is that the font must not be sold *by itself*, so a webfonts4sale.com type of operation can't just drop an OFL'd font into their production line and start raking in the profits. Karl ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
In a message dated 11/4/2008 4:07:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However I don't want to see any version of that font being sold for profit or falling under a commercial or proprietary license - or someone making minor modifications and copyrighting them. That would just be allowing someone else to cynically take financial advantage of all my hard work without doing much of anything themselves or it could mean that I couldn't make some improvement in my own font because someone might claim the improvement was already copyright. I'm would be foolish to donate land for a public park without ensuring that and noone could come along, erect a small fence and claim it as their own personal or commercial property. Releasing a font under GPL or OFL license simply ensures the font can freely be used or modified by anyone and that no one can claim proprietary or commercial rights. If somebody does want a similar font to sell under a commercial license I'm perfectly willing to develop one for them for a fair price. My vision is more along the lines of: Someone takes a basic, high quality font with a copycenter license or public domain dedication. They use that as a base, making it into the banana font and Sarah's Swirly Sans Serif, then sells those as commercial fonts. If you look at the programming post, you will see how the best programmers know how to use snippets of other people's work to create their own. I also imagine someone may grab glyphs, etc. from several different open fonts, combine them into one, with their own style... The CC-BY License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This license requires attribution - and for any *reuse* or distribution, requires that the original license terms must be made clear to others. Does this mean if someone uses a font under this license to print a book (which could be considered a kind of reuse) that the original license terms must be printed or indicated in the book? Does there have to be an attribution? Rejon, you work for CC, can you explain this to us? CC Licenses are somewhat long, have some quirks, and mainly people get confused between CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-SA-ND, etc...I've seen too many webpages content which simply say you may reuse this (whatever it is I created) under a Creative Commons license, but then failing to say which one, which leaves people in the dark as to what the author is saying they can and cannot do with the content. The MIT/X11 License As a font developer why should I particularly want to let anyone sublicense, and/or sell copies of a font they got freely from me? I'm happy to share or but I don't particularly want anyone sub licensing or distributing copies for profit. This is probably the best example of what licenses for a good open reusable font library ought to be. Simple, understandable, you decide it's ok with you, or you decide it's not. Zope Public License (ZPL) As a font developer why would I ever want to use a license which states This software consists of contributions made by Zope Corporation - I don't even know who they are and the Zope Corporation didn't contribute to any font software I made. I never saw that in the Zope License ... Maybe you read a version I did not. Here is the Zope Public License (ZPL) 2.1: Zope Public License (ZPL) Version 2.1 A copyright notice accompanies this license document that identifies the copyright holders. This license has been certified as open source. It has also been designated as GPL compatible by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions in source code must retain the accompanying copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the accompanying copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Names of the copyright holders must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission from the copyright holders. The right to distribute this software or to use it for any purpose does not give you the right to use Servicemarks (sm) or Trademarks (tm) of the copyright holders. Use of them is covered by separate agreement with the copyright holders. If any files are modified, you must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Disclaimer THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 20:16 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/4/2008 4:07:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However I don't want to see any version of that font being sold for profit or falling under a commercial or proprietary license - or someone making minor modifications and copyrighting them. That would just be allowing someone else to cynically take financial advantage of all my hard work without doing much of anything themselves or it could mean that I couldn't make some improvement in my own font because someone might claim the improvement was already copyright. I'm would be foolish to donate land for a public park without ensuring that and noone could come along, erect a small fence and claim it as their own personal or commercial property. Releasing a font under GPL or OFL license simply ensures the font can freely be used or modified by anyone and that no one can claim proprietary or commercial rights. If somebody does want a similar font to sell under a commercial license I'm perfectly willing to develop one for them for a fair price. My vision is more along the lines of: Someone takes a basic, high quality font with a copycenter license or public domain dedication. They use that as a base, making it into the banana font and Sarah's Swirly Sans Serif, then sells those as commercial fonts. If you look at the programming post, you will see how the best programmers know how to use snippets of other people's work to create their own. I also imagine someone may grab glyphs, etc. from several different open fonts, combine them into one, with their own style... The CC-BY License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This license requires attribution - and for any *reuse* or distribution, requires that the original license terms must be made clear to others. Does this mean if someone uses a font under this license to print a book (which could be considered a kind of reuse) that the original license terms must be printed or indicated in the book? Does there have to be an attribution? Rejon, you work for CC, can you explain this to us? CC Licenses are somewhat long, have some quirks, and mainly people get confused between CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-SA-ND, etc...I've seen too many webpages content which simply say you may reuse this (whatever it is I created) under a Creative Commons license, but then failing to say which one, which leaves people in the dark as to what the author is saying they can and cannot do with the content. CC discourages use of cc licenses for fonts. I am not a fulltime employee of cc anymore and am only really work on a couple of projects more like freelance/contractor right now for cc. The CC website does a good job of explaining the differences between the licenses far better than I: http://creativecommons.org/about/license/ I would break cc licenses down as: Free (CC BY, CC BY-SA), non-free (the other 4). Then all current licenses require attribution (aka a linkback and/or credit to the author(s). Jon snip / -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
