No, the copyright treaties the United States has entered into specify
that something copyrighted in a foreign country is not subject to
copyright in the U.S. *unless* it would have been subject to copyright
if it were made in the U.S. Typefaces are not subject to copyright in
the U.S., no
Here's an opportunity to promote the OFL...
http://blog.typekit.com/2009/06/11/when-free-fonts-arent-free/
- C
Igino Marini, creator of the The Fell Types,
http://iginomarini.com/fell/,
http://iginomarini.com/fell/the-revival-fonts/ is someone else who
might be approached.
His current licence is something like attribution, no modification
- Chris
fontfree...@aol.com wrote:
@font face does not work with IE...What do you mean supported it? Is
there a 3rd party downloadable plugin somewhere so it will work? @font
face does not work with MSIE 6 or MSIE 7 or MSIE 8. Maybe it will be in
MSIE 9?
Of course it does, but only with EOT format
fontfree...@aol.com wrote:
@font face does not work with IE...What do you mean supported it? Is
there a 3rd party downloadable plugin somewhere so it will work? @font
face does not work with MSIE 6 or MSIE 7 or MSIE 8. Maybe it will be in
MSIE 9?
Of course it does, but only with EOT format
This site http://www.theleagueofmoveabletype.com/ distributes fonts
under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike Licence
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Which allows copying, distribution and attributed derivative works under
the same, similar or a compatible license.
Is
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
...
But I think for many people @font-face will be a great enabler: they
will have a much nicer solution for publishing content on the web (or
platforms using web-technologies) via open standards and have to worry
about pictures and problematic encodings to represent
They've just said this:
I just wanted to clarify some of the confusion over the mention of
JavaScript in the post. Typekit isn’t using any sort of image
replacement for rendering fonts on web pages. We’re using the CSS
@font-face declaration to link to Truetype and OpenType files. We’re
Dave Crossland wrote:
Is this in otf? I know of TTC files but never saw one.
Not in OTF
TTC files are apparently designed for fonts that share common glyphs -
*not* for multiple font styles (normal-bold-italic) in a single font
file. (The example usually given for TTC fonts is CJK fonts
Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Ed Trager wrote:
But I assume that the problem you are really trying to address is one
of people copying glyph outlines into a new font that they claim to be
their own?
Yes
For that kind of situation, one would, I assume, have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAG_Rounded
The Wikipedia article on VAG Rounded says...
In 1978, the whole Volkswagen and Audi Dealer Organization worldwide
was re-branded as V.A.G using the distinct V.A.G Rounded (or V.A.G
Rundschrift) as the font for all signage, and for all headlines in
TrueType and OpenType fonts already have embedding bits and
tables/fields for including licence, trademark, copyright, designers
url, etc. in the font file. Trouble is the fonts embedded in PDF files -
especially if they were originally TT or OT - are *not* the same as the
original font file.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You guys really should see the Font Myths website:
...
IMO One should try and copyright a font *both* as Software - covers USA
and other jurisdictions *and* as an artistic work if you are in
jurisdiction that allows this. No one was suggesting to copyright a font
Liam R E Quin wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 12:08 +0600, Christopher Fynn wrote:
[...]
If eligible, might not one want to first publish a font outside the US
in a country where the font is protected as an artistic work and as
software?
eligible will generally mean the creator is a citizen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why?
Most developed countries including the US offer copyright protection to
foreign works under under the Berne Convention since 1989 and the
Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) since 1955.
The works of an author who is a national or resident of a
Dave Crossland wrote:
2008/11/7 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: http://www.gillhams.com/articles/352.cfm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/plain/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch1-pb4
is the actual law, and confirms this copyright lasts for 25 years.
But if a font
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also wonder whether free software licenses (designed for software) are
appropriate for fonts where a font is first published in a country where
the design is protected?
^
If you hope to have international recognition of your copyright, the
Dave Crossland wrote:
Secondly, there is the specific case of the cashflow being positive.
First there are the one-off cases: Ascender seems to have made money
doing it recently for Google and Red Hat, and Evertype also did a paid
free software font job recently.
Exactly - when Red Hat and
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
[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
[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
Dave Crossland wrote:
Do you think _not_ supporting things like that .js will help speed
@font-face adoption?
As much as possible, I'd like to see efforts *focused* on getting
widespread support for @font-face.
As I see it partial solutions can remove some of the pressure for a more
Dave Crossland wrote:
2008/7/23 Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
These are the same people that released the report trashing free fonts
They were shit-talking proprietary software redistributable at zero
price - freeware - and all the problems they identify would be
solvable if those
I see some fonts in the Open Font Library are licensed under GPL
- yet in the Submit Font form the only two options available are OFL and
PD.
Is there any reason why an option for GPL + Font Exception or even for
GPL is not included? - Particularly as the site already contains GPL'd
fonts.
-
http://www.fontembedding.com/ = Ascender.
These are the same people that released the report trashing free fonts
http://www.ascendercorp.com/webfontstudy.html
Dave Crossland wrote:
2008/7/21 Gustavo Ferreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://www.fontembedding.com/
curious to hear your thoughts
Sounds good...easiest solution, make new fonts released into PD or with
OFL license ;)
Jon
Personally I think it it would be useful to have a series of License choices
available for fonts - like CC has for other artistic works.
Just like other creative people there are type designers
George Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 13:02, Christopher Fynn wrote:
In the case of Type 1 Fonts like Adobe Utopia what additional information
(not in the Type 1 Font file metrics file) would a Fontographer source
file provide anyway?
Well, kerning and ligatures live in the afm
For generating font samples it might be useful to compile a set of Quick brown
fox type phrases in Unicode for different languages and scripts.
Often when I go to look at a sample for an Indic script font all I get from the
application generating the sample is a sample showing me the Latin
I seem to recall that in early versions of Ghostscript
the URW fonts had a *much* more restricted licence
- but they were distributed free of charge
Question - did Artifex pay only to get the licence changed
to GPL or did they pay URW to allow the earlier
free of charge distribution
- Chris
On 7 мая 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Message transféré
De: Caius Carlos Chance
À: fedora-fonts-list
Sujet: Updates of liberation-fonts.
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 16:54:53 +1000
...
- The source on fh.o is still in progress of conversion. We are quality
checking to see if the
http://www.tiresias.org/ associated with the Scientific Research Unit of the
RNIB (Royal National Institute for the Blind) in the UK has released a series
of
professionally designed fonts made for people with visual disabilities (they
are
nice fonts for everyone else as well).
see:
Dave Crossland wrote:
...
I read 'system fonts for the Android platform ... that will be made
available under the Apache open source license' :-)
In this case I'd wait till you read the actual licence in the fonts.
Ascender is not particularly in the Free and OpenSource fonts camp...
see:
Dave Crossland wrote:
On 15/11/2007, Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case I'd wait till you read the actual licence in the fonts.
Yes; lots of chatter about how much freedom Google is giving with
these phones, since what is available now is totally proprietary. But
I
33 matches
Mail list logo
