Of course I put these three Code2nnn fonts on SourceForge, being sick of their
further development and whole commercial aura around them. All fonts are now of
course freeware - simply do what you want with them all. Check:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/code2000/ project, it contains link to
On Friday, February 03, 2012 9:52:26 AM James Kass wrote:
All fonts are now of course freeware - simply do what you want with them
all.
Freeware isn't afaik a legal term.
Could you slap some kind of license on them?
The CC0 or MIT licenses sound like what you might want:
License already included in SourceForge download, namely GPLv3.
James Kass
--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
From: Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex
script rendering support on Android)
To: unicode@unicode.org
Cc:
James Kass:
License already included in SourceForge download, namely GPLv3.
You probably want to use GPL+FE, i.e. GPL with font exception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_font_exception
SourceForge trove categorization allows only:
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html
so
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
change proposed by you is not applicable.
James Kass
--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Christoph Päper christoph.pae...@crissov.de wrote:
From: Christoph
FWIW I feel OFL is the best and simplest free font license out there
compared to GPL which was designed for other kinds of software.
Sent from my Android phone
On Feb 3, 2012 10:16 PM, Christoph Päper christoph.pae...@crissov.de
wrote:
James Kass:
License already included in SourceForge
GPL != do what you want with them :) For example what Christoph pointed out.
You may want to consider a more permissive license if do what you want is
your intent.
-Shawn
(as myself)
From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf
Of James Kass
Sent: Friday,
Considering that the legal/regulatory aspect seems to be why James got away
from development of Code200*, I suspect it won’t be too productive to exhort
him to choose a different license. BTW, James, I’m glad you’re OK, though
obviously frustrated.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
I rather would stick with GPLv3, simply because more permissive license
threatens freedom. For example, someone may take over my fonts, develop them
further, and subsequently change their license to something commercial-only. It
is what I want to avoid. Just something like stories known from
Yes, I got away from further development, while limiting myself to minimal
maintenance of this Code2nnn project. I have extensive private life
obligations, and I couldn't afford staring at a computer all the day. You
should be happy that I saved my Code2nnn project from utter disappearance,
FWIW there are many other free hosting services than SourceForge...
Sent from my Android phone
On Feb 3, 2012 10:44 PM, Shawn Steele shawn.ste...@microsoft.com wrote:
GPL != “do what you want with them” J For example what Christoph
pointed out. You may want to consider a more permissive
On Friday, February 03, 2012 11:43:57 AM James Kass wrote:
SourceForge trove categorization allows only:
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html
so
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
change proposed by you is not applicable.
I don't understand what you're
I mean that I'm verbally licensing Code2nnn under the plain GPLv3 *without* any
exceptions. I only explain why the FontException is not applicable to
SourceForge. It's so because SourceForge allows only ClassPath exception or
plain GPLv3, so no FontException at all.
James Kass
--- On Fri,
On Friday, February 03, 2012 1:29:52 PM James Kass wrote:
I mean that I'm verbally licensing Code2nnn under the plain GPLv3 *without*
any exceptions.
This means one cannot print documents with the fonts unless the documents are
licensed under the GPLv3 (or compatible). Is that your intent?
Printed documents aren't binary, so perhaps normal paper book copyright applies
to them.
James Kass
--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
From: Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge
To: James Kass jamesk...@att.net
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Date: Friday,
Why has this become a hassle-fest on James about the licenses? We
missed the project, it's out there, we can use it, let's be happy.
~mark
Luke, IANAL but AFAIK the font exception is merely a *clarification* that
using this font in a document does not constitute a derivative work but is
merely use of the font so the document itself need not be GPL-ed. This is
however true even without the clarification being explicitly stated and so
On Friday, February 03, 2012 1:47:32 PM James Kass wrote:
Printed documents aren't binary,
GPL doesn't talk about binary. It talks about source code and not-source-
code. Source code is defined as the form you edit it in, in a standard
computer format. So printed documents *always* have source
Shriramana Sharma already explained it to you, even better than I could, see:
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2012-m02/0020.html
James Kass
--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
From: Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge
To: James Kass
Said OK. Replying to various mails keeps me busy around the clock, so what's
with my private life?
James Kass
--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Mark E. Shoulson m...@kli.org wrote:
From: Mark E. Shoulson m...@kli.org
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge
To: unicode@unicode.org
Date: Friday, February 3, 2012,
James Kass wrote:
Of course I put these three Code2nnn fonts on SourceForge, being sick of
their further development and whole commercial aura around them.
Thanks for your work contributing to Unicode and to the whole community.
Antoine
I'm very happy that I could contribute my work to Unicode and to the whole
community.
James Kass
--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Antoine Leca antoine10...@leca-marti.org wrote:
From: Antoine Leca antoine10...@leca-marti.org
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge (was Re: [indic] Re: Lack of Complex
script
Christoph Päper wrote:
James Kass:
License already included in SourceForge download, namely GPLv3.
You probably want to use GPL+FE, i.e. GPL with font exception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_font_exception
I am not completely sure you want to embed Code2000 with a document you
intent to
No problem with this, see:
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2012-m02/0020.html
James Kass
--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Antoine Leca antoine10...@leca-marti.org wrote:
From: Antoine Leca antoine10...@leca-marti.org
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge
To:
Cc: Unicode Discussion
On Friday, February 03, 2012 1:48:56 PM Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Luke, IANAL but AFAIK the font exception is merely a *clarification* that
using this font in a document does not constitute a derivative work but is
merely use of the font so the document itself need not be GPL-ed. This is
I know this is no legal defense, but James really does not sound like he
is of a mind to take people to court for using his fonts.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
-Original Message-
From: Luke-Jr
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 12:41
To:
Don't worry. Taking somebody to court for using of my fonts for any purpose is
something what I *strongly oppose*.
James Kass
--- On Fri, 2/3/12, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
From: Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org
Subject: Re: Code2000 on SourceForge
To: Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org,
Code2000 is everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. Many people continue to
consider it one of the pre-eminent fonts available with the goal of covering as
much of Unicode as possible.
Even though I now have a Windows 7 machine, with its greatly enhanced (over XP)
font collection, there are still
On 3 February 2012 20:41, James Kass jamesk...@att.net wrote:
Don't worry. Taking somebody to court for using of my fonts for any purpose
is something what I *strongly oppose*.
James,
It's great to see you back, just a pity that your English seems to
have deteriorated so much over the last
My English deteriorated so much over the last couple of years, simply because
my mind became simpler, without excessive bells and whistles, it was side
effect of my simply focusing on current living cheaply, due to worldwide
ravaging economical crisis.
I added capital yot only to have all basic
I like the SIL licence better than the Gnu ones.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Luke, again I should say IANAL but it is the *intention* of the author of
the software, especially when it is explicitly stated, that matters. IIRC
the MySQL people use the same GPL as the kernel but say that any
application using the interface they provide is considered by them to be
derivative,
32 matches
Mail list logo
