Marcin Borkowski <mbork <at>> writes:

> Dnia Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:14:49PM -0600, Idris Samawi Hamid ادريس سماوي
حامد napisa&#322;(a):
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:27:09 -0600, Bruce D'Arcus  
> > <bdarcus.lists <at>> wrote:
> > 
> > >c) that there's no reason at all to make a distinction between free
> > >and professional fonts in such a repository
> > 
> > I absolutely agree with Bruce on this point 
> And I strongly disagree.  A repository of that kind would be a great
> idea, but at least one column in the table (price, or just "free: Y/N")
> would be very useful - especially for people like me, who cannot afford
> expensive commercial fonts.

OK, let me rephrase: I mean there's no reason to exclude commercial font
tyepscripts from the repository.

Also, I think it would be useful to include availability information in the file
(if possible) regardless of the whether it's free or commercial.

> And note that the distinction is *not* between "free" and
> "professional", but rather "free" and "commercial".  Aren't LM or TeX
> Gyre professional;)?

You're right that my word choice was wrong. OTOH, I think LM looks like crap ;-)

But your wording is also a little loose; "free" is rather vague, and licensing
details matter quite a lot with fonts. 


If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the 

maillist : /
webpage  : /
archive  :
wiki     :

Reply via email to