Re: Noto unified font

The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also explicitly allows reselling (rule DFSG #1): http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi=OFL It is not directly compatible with the GPL in a composite product, but with LGPL there's no problem, and there's no problem if

Re: Noto unified font

2016-10-09 2:20 GMT+02:00 James Kass : > Philippe Verdy wrote, > > > Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts > made > > specifically for each script ... > > In a constantly changing world, it should be a pleasant experience to > be reminded

Re: Noto unified font

On 09/10/16 13:50, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote: >> On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote: >>> It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :( FSF appears to classify OFL as a Free license (though incompatible with the GNU GPL &

Re: Noto unified font

On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote: > It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :( Which alternate license would you recommend? cya, #

Re: Noto unified font

On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote: > On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :( > > Which alternate license would you recommend? MIT license or LGPL seem reasonable and common among free fonts. Some also

Re: Noto unified font

That's not "his" definition of non-free. Restrictions on selling copies commercially violate the Free Software Foundation's definition of non-free: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses And also the Open Source

Re: Bit arithmetic on Unicode characters?

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: > Markup for rotation is highly underdeveloped, and in this case for chess > it has its own semantics, it's not just a presentation feature, possibly > meant for playing on larger boards with more players than 2, and >

Re: Noto unified font

That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the moral

Re: Noto unified font

Philippe Verdy wrote, > Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts made > specifically for each script ... In a constantly changing world, it should be a pleasant experience to be reminded that some things remain constant. Whether the Noto font family is released as

Re: Noto unified font

Interested to know why you think OFL is non-free... On 9 Oct 2016 05:18, "Luke Dashjr" wrote: > On Saturday, October 08, 2016 5:57:41 PM James Kass wrote: > > Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all > > languages: > >

Re: Noto unified font

It forbids sale of the font by itself. (I'm aware the FSF thinks there's a loophole by bundling "hello world", but I don't think this would hold up in court.) On Saturday, October 08, 2016 11:50:40 PM Shriramana Sharma wrote: > Interested to know why you think OFL is non-free... > > On 9 Oct

Re: Noto unified font

On Saturday, October 08, 2016 5:57:41 PM James Kass wrote: > Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all > languages: > https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/06/google-and-monotype-unveil-the-noto-proje > cts-unified-font-for-all-languages/ It's unfortunate they released it under

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 09:22:21 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote: > Marcel Schneider wrote: > >> According to my hypothesis and while waiting, I believe that >> the intent of the gap kept in the superscript lowercase range, >> is to maintain a limitation to the performance of plain text. >> I don't see very

Re: Noto unified font

Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts made specifically for each script (some scripts having several national variants, notably for sinographs, most of them having two styles except symbols, most of them having two weights, except symbols that have a single weight

Noto unified font

Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all languages: https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/06/google-and-monotype-unveil-the-noto-projects-unified-font-for-all-languages/ About ten years or so ago, I recall being actively discouraged from working on the Code2xxx fonts because

Re: Bit arithmetic on Unicode characters?

Markup for rotation is highly underdeveloped, and in this case for chess it has its own semantics, it's not just a presentation feature, possibly meant for playing on larger boards with more players than 2, and distinguished just like there's a distinction between white and black, or meant to

Re: Bit arithmetic on Unicode characters?

Looking at the image, the idea of the proposal is to include chess piece symbols in all four 90° rotations? Wouldn't it be better to do this in markup than in Unicode? I fear a combinatorial explosion if Unicode starts including all the possible orientations of characters. (Maybe there's a good

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 8 Oct 2016, at 12:03, Julian Bradfield wrote: > > I happen to think the whole math alphabet thing was a dumb > mistake. They are useful in mathematics, but other sciences may not use them. > But even if it isn't - and incidentally in some communities > there is

Re: Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-07, Oren Watson wrote: > I scarcely think that a use case was submitted for every one of the > blackboard bold etc letters in the mathematical set; merely the use of > blackboard bold for a general purpose of denoting sets such as the > naturals, reals, complex

Re: Bit arithmetic on Unicode characters?

Sorry about the blank reply. Itchy trigger finger. On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ken Whistler wrote: > > On 10/6/2016 12:44 PM, Garth Wallace wrote: > > Some representatives of the WFCC have proposed alternate arrangements that > assume there will be a need for bitwise