Dave Crossland wrote:
Here's the non-free license information for these fonts. They are very
nice though! :-)
They are excellent! But NC-ND read stricly means you cannot actually use
them in any derivative works at all, for example in any typography. ;-)
- Rob.
_
Dave Crossland wrote:
On 19/01/07, Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But NC-ND read stricly means you cannot actually use
them in any derivative works at all, for example in any typography. ;-)
Its not CC ND-NC, and the license is pretty clear that its fine for
use in comm
Gustavo Ferreira wrote:
there are no type-designers on this list, and as far as i know not even graphic designers. (please
correct me if i'm wrong!)
I've worked as a designer and I did some type design in the early 1990s.
Fuse 94 was fun and the book version of the Type 1 Font Specification
Gustavo Ferreira wrote:
first of all, i think the ofl is too permissive for my business model. i am an independent designer, as
most type-designers are; i don't have salaries paid by any company, and i am definitely not rich. i am
trying to set up a type business, in which the income is typical
Dave Crossland wrote:
> Large font filesizes are no problem when the fonts are free, because
> leaner versions are easy to generate for production use.
Distributing the in-house design data with the font has useful
ramifications for GPL-style licences that pivot on the concepts of
distribution/
> The term "public domain" is soemtimes used in Canada to refer
> to the body of works whose copyright has expired, I think.
Yes this is the same in the UK.
And dedicating work to the public domain may be a more complex matter
than in the US.
But "public domain" is still a useful shorthand for c
Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> http://www.openfontlibrary.com/
>
> *shrugs shoulders*
>
> Well, the best of luck to them.
Indeed. May the best project win. Or peaceful coexistence ensue.
Is the name a problem, project identity-wise?
- Rob
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> ... Assuming Person A is using the MIT/X11 License for
> their font:
>
> Person A created a font called zfff. Uploads it to the OpenFontLibrary.
> Person B downloads it, modifies it 40%, and sells it as a commercial font,
> Super zfff.
> Person C buys the font
Can we have a free version of Beowolf sans? ;-)
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Openfontlibrary mailing list
Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
5 nov 2008, at 21:22, Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Can we have a free version of Beowolf sans? ;-)
>>
>> - Rob.
>>
>> ___
>> Openfontlibrary mailing list
>> Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop
I am now totally confused by that section. What is an "article" in
this context? :-)
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "For further information and legal advice on copyright protection of
> typefaces and fonts, contact our lawyers online or call us on 02
(Accidentally sent off-list. Merged with a follow-up also accidentally
sent off list. Please can we have reply-to-list as the default.)
IANAL, TINLA.
The "typographic arrangement of a work" is the layout of a book, not
the design of a typeface. It is this that has a term of 25 years.
I assume th
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apache License 2.0 is an curious open source license; it's
> patent-crazed-left, but NOT copyleft.
It's the new favorite license for corporates who don't want to inhale.
- Rob.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:39 AM, wrote:
> I do think I want to push for fonts licensed under the MIT / X11 license, on
> one of these new sites people are
> building, we need some pages urging people to release new fonts under that
> particular license. I think this could be a core/reccomended op
Christopher Fynn wrote:
> Even if it were legally permissible in the US to distribute pre-1989
> fonts without a copyright notice or registered copyright - do you
> believe it would be ethical do this without the designer / font creators
> agreement?
Yes, because this is how copyright works.
>
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
> 2008/12/30 Jon Stanley :
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:47 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> "The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if
>>> the output, given its
>>> content, constitutes a covered work."
>>
>> Since you are
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Miguel Eduardo Venegas Monroy
wrote:
> hey, any tell me about if have a open source program'ss to design font's?
You could try FontForge:
http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/
- Rob.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> I feel strongly that "open" is also confusing because it doesn't bring
> to mind the primary goal, freedom, and this has concrete disadvantages
> like not publishing source files.
"Open" is open to abuse, yes.
> He and I have been discu
18 matches
Mail list logo
