https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150481
--- Comment #18 from گیلان <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #16) > Hmm... I haven't thought about that. Do you believe there should be a > distinction? I mean, if Farsi-writers say they prefer a different default, > then sure, but - would they prefer a different default? I believe there are generally different aesthetics tastes among Arabic and Farsi users. And of course, the choice of font also depends on the case of usage so let's assume it's a simple public-intended book or a formal letter. In that case a Farsi user opinion would probably be: Noto Naskh Arabic: acceptable. Noto Kufi Arabic: Not formal at all. Amiri and KacstOffice: totally Arabic KacstBook: acceptable For Farsi, I suggest IRTitr for header and IRLotus or IRNazanin for body. > * The font's legal status must be clear: Original creator or current > official owner known, license known and recognized by original > creator/current owner. > > * The font needs to have an appropriate license. The license must allow, at > the very least, redistribution; but we may even be requiring the font > license to allow modification. I'm not sure about that (I wasn't in charge > of font adoption for the Hebrew fonts, Yousuf was). These 3 are modified (not created from scratch) fonts from a government project in Iran to provide a free series of standard Farsi fonts for personal and commercial use. Both the government Institute and the private sector contractor are now disbanded and currently it is not possible to contact the umbrella state agency (http://majazi.ir) to ask about the license. Bytheway, Iran does not recognize international copyright so I reckon you can use them with no worries. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
