Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le vendredi 04 juillet 2008 à 12:25 +0200, Nicolas Spalinger a écrit :Dave Crossland wrote:Yes, but IMHO that's bypassing cc-Host's description features and therefore not ideal and confusing.2008/7/2 Femke Snelting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:So... what do we do next?Other people have put the font in a zip file with the license and make a note on the OFLB description that it is actually under the GPL and not PD/OFL.The note maybe but zipping font files with a detached .TXT file is good practice and should be promoted.
Indeed. 100% agreed :-)I'd also highly recommend a file in the release tarball describing the chosen licensing and some kind of readme/changelog. Actually that's why the OFL is promoting the concept of a FONTLOG and provides a template.
BTW, here's a proposed VCS branch and tarball template for an open font: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/foo-open-font-sources/?rev=0&sc=0 Your feedback very welcome, Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger http://scripts.sil.org http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/ https://launchpad.net/people/fonts
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
