Le Jeu 12 février 2009 04:08, Stephen Hartke a écrit :

>> 12. The author thinking the metatype sources would require him to
>> use
>> some other license than the OFL because they look more software-ish
>> is
>> just confusing things (pretty common occurrence unfortunately).
>> GPL-ing
>> the build scripts would probably be more interesting, but a. they're
>> lost and b. this would not change the font licensing at all.
> I'm confused by this comment.
> I think this is a program and very different than the MetaType1
> sources for
> Latin Modern and similar fonts that contain mainly just tables of data
> points.  In that sense, the GPL for the MetaType1 sources seems very
> reasonable to me.  Why do you think that it is inappropriate?

Basically, I don't think the format of your font should drive your
licensing decisions. If the GPL is appropriate for the metatype
version it's appropriate for the OTF version. Just "it looks more like
software as usual" is a weak reason.

Now, I do agree one of the OFL's main weakness is its refusal to admit
fonts may have sources (the other being the way it considers you want
your font renamed instead of making it an option), but the GPL has
other problems (embedding). But the differences in their licensing
model are only marginally linked to the format.

> I have not lost the source for the MetaType1 programs, but rather for
> the
> build scripts.  As you point out, it's tricky to build MetaType1
> files, and
> I had created files that were particularly tuned to work with teTeX.
> I
> don't really feel that it is advantageous to recreate these files.  I
> would
> much prefer to work on rewriting the MetaType1 programs using
> FontForge's Python scripting.

It would be very nice if you could publish the files you intend to
work from in buildable form so the Fedora packager can make a srpm
that produces fonts from your sources.

Nicolas Mailhot

Fedora-fonts-list mailing list

Reply via email to