Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Copyrights / Typefaces
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 matter where they were made. FF Unless there is an actual case involving a typeface you can cite, isn't what you say just an opinion? Should it ever come to that, are you ready to shell out real money for real lawyer to prove this point? - Chris
[OpenFontLibrary] When Free Fonts Aren’t Free
Here's an opportunity to promote the OFL... http://blog.typekit.com/2009/06/11/when-free-fonts-arent-free/ - C
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] theleagueofmoveabletype.com is switching to the Open Font License
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
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] More about @font-face
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 fonts. Does W3C mandate a
particular font format in that part of the CSS spec? In fact wasn't it
someone from Microsoft who originally proposed @font-face embedding that
was first included in the CSS 1.5 draft spec?
!--[if IE]
style type=text/css
@font-face {
font-family: OFLFreeFont;
font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;
src: url(fon ts/OFLFreeFont.eot);
}
/style
![endif]--
!--[if !IE]--
style type=text/css
@font-face {
font-family: OFLFreeFont;
font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;
src: url(fonts/OFLFreeFont.ttf);
}
/style
!--![endif]--
- C
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] More about @font-face
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 fonts. Does W3C mandate a
particular font format in that part of the CSS spec? In fact wasn't it
someone from Microsoft who originally proposed @font-face embedding that
was first included in the CSS 1.5 draft spec?
!--[if IE]
style type=text/css
@font-face {
font-family: OFLFreeFont;
font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;
src: url(fonts/OFLFreeFont.eot);
}
/style
![endif]--
!--[if !IE]--
style type=text/css
@font-face {
font-family: OFLFreeFont;
font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;
src: url(fonts/OFLFreeFont.ttf);
}
/style
!--![endif]--
- C
[OpenFontLibrary] CC Attribution Share Alike Licence fonts
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 this an acceptable license for the Open Font Library? The terms seem effectively similar to those of SIL's Open Font License. - Chris
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] What's the big deal about @font-face anyway?
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 text. There will still be lots of problems for quite a while - e.g. there are fonts that work on the PC and Linux versions of Firefox, but not on the Mac version; the support for OpenType is very different on PC Mac, which is a real issue for non-Latin scripts. - Chris
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] typekit - possible solution for foundries for fonts on the web?
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 using JavaScript to simplify that process and account for various browser versions (like automatically swapping in EOT for Internet Explorer). So what is the big deal? They are charging people for fonts they have presumably licensed. If they are serving Truetype and OpenType files there is no particular protection for the foundries. Chris Liam R E Quin wrote: On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 18:35 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: If they don't serve fonts, what do they serve? remains to be seen, but I presume a mix of subsetted fonts, EOT files, and javascript that draws on canvas elements, or flash, depending on the browser. The non-scaling part is that the master fonts live on their server. But, we'll see, and I think good will come out of it one way or another. Best, Liam
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] multiple fonts in a single file
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 that contain e.g. a shared set of Latin and symbol glyphs - with TTC these glyphs don't have to be in each font file.) Of course Open Type allows things like Normal and Small Caps glyphs in a single font file - those glyphs being accessed by applying an OpenType feature. In theory you could also make bold italic OpenType features and then you could have normal, bold, italic bold+italic glyphs in a single font file. Type 1 Multiple master fonts can of course have normal bold in a single font file ~ but these are not now widely supported. - Chris
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] use of (c) typefaces
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 to try to match glyph outlines against some searchable database of glyph outlines ... Exactly what I say :) sounds hard to do ... But it works Wouldn't you have to have access to the (c) / proprietary fonts in order to do this? - C
[OpenFontLibrary] Free/PD VAG Rounded
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 their advertising. The V.A.G logo did not use the font. Worldwide availability of the font was a problem. To solve the problem, V.A.G Rounded was put in the public domain. As Desktop Publishing emerged in the mid 1980’s, V.A.G Rounded was included in most free font packages and became widely used for that reason. Is this so? All the VAG Rounded fonts I can find seem to be commercial. - Chris
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [Fontforge-users] importing font from PDF crashes FF
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. Most or all of this information, which may have been in the original font file, is probably no longer there in the PDF embedded font. Fonts in PDF files are essentially like the fonts in a document sent to to a PostScript printer. (BTW with a terminal emulator, serial communications with the printer, and a few simple commands you can also extract fonts from a PostScript printer). Unicode fonts may get split into a number of smaller fonts and all OpenType tables etc. are gone. - Chris Gustavo Ferreira wrote: Op Nov 12, 2008, om 12:18 AM heeft George Williams het volgende geschreven: On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 11:21, Gustavo Ferreira wrote: does fontforge do any kind of checking before importing a font from a pdf? No, because there is generally no such information available. In fact it isn't clear to me that any font format contains this information -- until FontLab's EEULA table gets fleshed out. do you mean that there is no bit related to the particular situation of importing a font from a pdf? or that the bits are not readable from a font contained inside a pdf? regarding the eeula table -- i think i remember you suggesting once that it is possible to add any new tables to an (opentype? truetype?) font. (sorry, i don't remember the context of that discussion.) what would be necessary to have an eeula table implemented in fontforge? do you have any remarks in relation to the proposal presented on the eeulaa.org website? would it be reasonable to ask that the open font from pdf function imports only fonts with the proper permissions, and fails to do so when it is not permitted by the font? :-) If you know how to do this, feel free. hmm. this is c code? if you can do it, i can make you some nice icons... ;-) cheers, - gustavo.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Font Myths
[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 *only* as an artistic work. You want to copyright a font no matter what type of license you want to release it under. - C
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [Openfontlibrary] Fonts are software, so use a software license.
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 of a non-US country. You don't generally get additional protection for publishing a work in another country. Liam Also if you are a resident in a country or create a work in a country and publish it there. - C
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Font, design copyrights
[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 country that is a member of these treaties, works first published in a member country or published within 30 days of first publication in a Berne Union country may claim protection under the treaties. So if something is copyright in a country where it was first published the US should recognize that too if that country is also a member of the Berne Convention. I don't see any reason typefaces first released in the UK or Europe would enjoy any copyright protection in the U.S. All typefaces (not fonts) are automatically and immediately public domain in the U.S. Because it seems that under international copyright conventions countries have agreed to respect each others copyright. So if something is created in the UK and copyright there it should also be copyright in the US ~ whether or not a creation of the same sort created in the US would be copyright there. At least this is how the working of the conventions was explained to me. From what I've read, the only major country which allows copyright laws to apply to typefaces is the U.K. Germany http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/fontutils/fontu_129.html says: Germany Typeface designs have been copyrightable as original works of art since 1981. The law passed then was not retroactive, however, German courts have upheld the intellectual property rights of font designers even for earlier cases. In one case the heirs of Paul Bauer (designer of Futura) sued the Bauer foundry for arbitrarily discontinuing a portion of their royalties, and won. Since 1981, many (perhaps most) designs have been copyrighted in Germany. There is an international treaty on typeface design protection known as the Vienna agreement signed by eleven countries. least four countries have to ratify before it takes effect France ratified it in 1974 or 1975, and Germany in 1981 - not clear how many other countries have done this. [The Vienna Agreement for the Protection of Type Faces and Their International Deposit, reprinted in World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Records of the Vienna Diplomatic Conference On The Protection Of Type Faces 1973 (1980). See also Andraee Fran(con, The Vienna Agreement for the Protection of Type Faces and their International Deposit, Copyright , May, 1976, at 129.] According to http://www.tjc.com/copyright/typeface.html (FN FN186): Typefaces are protected under the Italian Design Law of 1940, noted in J.H. Reichman, Design Protection in Domestic and Foreign Copyright Law: From the Berne Revision of 1948 to the Copyright Act of 1976, 1983 Duke L.J. 1143, 1243 n.525 (1983) ___ OpenFontLibrary mailing list OpenFontLibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
[Openfontlibrary] [Fwd: Re: Fonts are protected are artistic works in the UK]
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 is an artistic work then the link you gave says: copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject to the following provisions of this section. and (3) If the work is computer-generated neither of the above provisions applies and copyright expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made. Both sections say 50 years not 25 The following, which does mention 25 years, does not apply to a font as such: Duration of copyright in typographical arrangement of published editions Copyright in the typographical arrangement of a published edition expires at the end of the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the edition was first published. That is for new typeset editions of otherwise out of copyright books. http://www.gillhams.com/articles/352.cfm also says a digital font is counted as an artisic work not a typeface. - C ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Fonts are software, so use a software license.
[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 font MUST be considered software, so a license referring to the font as software is actually very important. 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 country that is a member of these treaties, works first published in a member country or published within 30 days of first publication in a Berne Union country may claim protection under the treaties. So if something is copyright in a country where it was first published the US should recognize that too if that country is also a member of the Berne Convention. See: _http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/fonts.html_ (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/fonts.html) It may be that in America fonts can only be protected as software but in the UK they are also protected as artistic works. This may not be the case in the US where the argument has been that fonts should be considered utilitarian not artistic. 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. In order to qualify for protection as an artistic work in the UK, there is a minimum level of originality required, and some degree of skill and labour must be expended by the author. 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? - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] [OpenType] Proprietary (Off Topic)
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 Google wanted fonts they did *not* turn to any of the developers of Free/Libré fonts (many of which which Red Hat has in its Linux distributions) they turned to the commercial Ascender Corp. which gets paid well to make and hint digital fonts. Ascender's other clients include Microsoft. As far as I can make out Ascender Corp. have absolutely no commitment to Free/Libré fonts - they made or licensed these fonts on contract and once they sold rights and got the cash from Red Hat, it probably makes little difference to them what model and license Red Hat used to distribute them. (In fact they are getting good publicity for making fonts distributed under a GPL license - many people assume they donated them.) I'm not criticizing Ascender Corp. who do have particular expertise in making highly legible screen fonts ~ but, for the money they spent, could Red Hat not hire any one in the free/libré software community to develop these fonts? Did they even try? Or maybe there was no one in the free/libré font software developer community capable of making such fonts. - Chris ___ 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
[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
[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] typography.js from http://typeface.neocracy.org/
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 comprehensive solution. I'm also not very keen on any font linking and embedding method that doesn't support the needs of users of non-latin scripts - and in particular the needs of users of complex (e.g. arabic indic) scripts. IMO, in this day and age, any font architecture which doesn't take account of complex scripts is broken. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] FontEmbedding.com
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 fonts were not proprietary Agreed. They say that EOT will be a W3C specification. Microsoft's Embedded OpenType (.EOT) Font Format Submission Request to W3C: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/ Microsoft can submit whatever they want to the W3C, that doesn't mean it WILL become a specification. Adobe are supporting this as well - and from what I've heard it has fairly widespread support. Bitstream hold plenty of software patents on all this stuff, and they aren't involved in the W3C, so anyone who wants to implement anything like EOT is going to be screwed by them. The main Bitstream Patents related to this seems to be 5,577,177 Apparatus and methods for creating and using portable fonts which goes back to 1995 - I'm wondering how restrictive or enforceable this is? So far they don't seem to have taken any successful action to stop EOT Microsoft's WEFT which has already been around for ten years. Why woud that change now? Meanwhile Bitstream seem have stopped pushing their PFR for web font embedding (which anyway did not work complex scripts) - and seem to be concentrating on it's use in Digital Video and embedded devices. Bitstream's Own TrueDoc / PFR blurb http://www.bitstream.com/font_rendering/products/truedoc/faqs.html claims TrueDoc works differently from font embedding which sounds like they are trying to claim what they do is *different* from EOT etc. They also claim: When recording characters, the TrueDoc recorder does not access the original font directly. In addition, TrueDoc does not copy or use any hinting information from the original font. TrueDoc's internal, automatic hinting process handles all hinting to guarantee exceptional quality on all devices. - and seem to imply that this gets round the original font license. Of course Microsoft, Monotype, Adobe also have number of patents of their own related to font embedding . - chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
[Openfontlibrary] GPL with Font Exception?
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. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] FontEmbedding.com
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 about this... :-) They say that EOT will be a W3C specification. Microsoft's Embedded OpenType (.EOT) Font Format Submission Request to W3C: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/ MS Embedded OpenType (EOT) File Format: http://www.w3.org/Submission/EOT/ Monotype MicroType Express (MTX) Font Format: http://www.w3.org/Submission/MTX/ - Chris This seems delusional to me. ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] On the license of Adobe Utopia font
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 who may be happy to have copies of some of their fonts distributed freely - but they may feel they wish to e.g. protect the integrity of their design and place some restrictions on modifications or derivatives. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] On the license of Adobe Utopia font
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. But I presume that would also be available. AFM is what I meant by metrics file. So what does a fog file provide that the pfb/afm combination doesn't? 1) guidelines (to establish xheight, capheight, etc.) Shouldn't the AFM file contain the values for Ascender, Descender, XHeight CapHeight? In the case of Latin fonts these values are usually pretty easy to derive anyway. Stems and alignment zones are also in the font files 2) background images (and splines) (used for tracing outlines) *If* they traced the outlines in Fontographer. 3) diagonal hints (useless for PostScript fonts) Since Adobe were making only PostScript fonts - I doubt if there would be diagonal hints. The fog file can also contain bitmaps, but I presume that if those existed there would be bdf files for them. There is a good chance Adobe developed Utopia using something other than Fontographer anyway. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head. The point was that in the case of Type 1 fonts there may be little or no useful extra information contained in the Fontographer source file. Anyway the font files themselves are probably readable by many more applications that the Fontographer files. Something like the designers original sketches for the font might be far more useful to anyone wanting to extend a font like Utopia ... - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] Generating Font Samples
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 glyphs that may be included in the font - and, when looking at examples of say Devanagri fonts, I'm not that interested in the Latin glyphs in those fonts. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] urw donated or not
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 minombresbond wrote: the urw font package is one of the best quality collection of free-as-freedom fonts, gplized for the ghostscript project the people say on the web that these sources were *donated* by urw but, in the Raph Levin blog in advocato I found: http://www.advogato.org/person/raph/diary/257.html By the way, URW did not donate these fonts under the GPL out of their own hearts. Artifex paid good money for them, and donated them out of a mix of self-interest and altruism. Is this really the case? thanks! *** VIRUS SCANNED by FASTLINK ISP *** ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] [Fwd: Updates of liberation-fonts.]
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 generated TTFs from SFDs (which generated from initial TTFs of original manufacturer) are the same. ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444392 Best Regards, Caius. So the ultimate source of the (sfd) source for the new TTFs will be the original TTFs. - C *** VIRUS SCANNED by FASTLINK ISP *** ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
[Openfontlibrary] Tiresias fonts
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: http://www.tiresias.org/fonts/index.htm http://www.tiresias.org/fonts/fonts_download.htm - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] droid fonts
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: http://www.ascendercorp.com/webfontstudy.html They are also the marketing agents for Microsoft® fonts. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] droid fonts
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 hope they will release it under Apache 2. (GPLv3 compatible :-) Ascender is not particularly in the Free and OpenSource fonts camp... They are also the marketing agents for Microsoft(R) fonts. Yes, this is true, but they did Red Hat's Liberation fonts too, so they are more in the sofware-freedom camp then any other proprietary foundry, afaik Hi Dave I suspect Red Hat paid Bill Davis / Ascender for the Liberation fonts - and Google has probably paid them for the Droid fonts too. If Google commissioned the Droid fonts then the choice of license will of course be theirs and, if the licence for those fonts is open, the credit for that should probably go to them not to Ascender. Ascender's web fonts survey used an incredibly biased set of tests 1. TrueType hinting tables – 8.9% failed (404 TrueType fonts had improper/incomplete tables*) This test checks for the presence of ‘fpgm’, ‘prep’, and ‘cvt’ tables. If all three tables are present the font passes, if any or all are missing the font fails this test. The consequence of a failure is that the font will be flagged as having errors in FontBook under Mac OS X 10.4. - I suspect most of the font tested were created long before FontBook on Mac OS X 10.4 came out. To pass this even unhinted fonts need these tables even if they contain no useful data. Anyway I understand this has been fixed in Mac OSX 10.5 - The statement Fonts that have hinting information will have better screen quality in Windows than a font with no hinting information. is imho not always true - With TrueType fonts bad hinting instructions or poor quality auto hinting may be worse than no hinting at all. I've noticed the on-the-fly auto hinting in FreeType often renders even many commercial fonts better than when the hinting instructions in the font are applied. Code Page 1252 character set – 80.8% failed (3696 fonts missing one or more characters) Mac Roman character set – 95.9% failed (4385 fonts missing one or more characters) - Without looking at the details of which particular characters are missing these figures are not very significant. - If the missing characters are not used or very rarely used on web pages how significant is their absence?. I'm thinking about things like mu (B5) cedilla (B8) in the Windows ANSI 1253 code page, approxequal (C5) and Delta (C6) in Mac Roman. - For English language only web sites in most cases you could drop many other non ASCII characters in these code pages. (This is just what sub-setting in embedded fonts does.) - All Adobe's fonts which used the Adobe character set would also fail this test. - Thinking beyond these two code pages there are of course examples of high quality free fonts like Gentium which has far better character coverage than almost any commercial font. Also how many of the tested free fonts were symbol fonts or similar? Trademark string – 1.7% failed (78 fonts missing a trademark string - If the font name or foundry name is not a registered trademark why should the Trademark string field contain any data? Embedding restriction – 30.3% failed (1386 fonts set to “Restricted” or improper fsType) - My guess an equally large percentage of commercial fonts would be set to Restricted or have some limitations on embedding Anyway the Ascender survey at least makes the point that we should strive for *quality* in free and open source fonts. Perhaps the OpenFont library could perform a very useful service to users by setting some kind of real standard indicating the quality of fonts and pointing out technical faults. Maybe some kind of seal of approval for truly high quality free fonts conducted by design professionals? Objective comparisons between particular free fonts and similar fonts from commercial foundry might also be useful. This would perhaps give free fonts more credibility and be an answer to the kind of survey Ascender made. The current ratings and reviews in the OpenFont library are nice but imo pretty subjective. - Chris ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
