On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 20:16 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 11/4/2008 4:07:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL > PROTECTED] > writes: > >However I don't want to see any version of that font being sold for > >profit or falling under a commercial or proprietary license - or someone > >making minor modifications and copyrighting them. That would just be > >allowing someone else to cynically take financial advantage of all my > >hard work without doing much of anything themselves or it could mean > >that I couldn't make some improvement in my own font because someone > >might claim the improvement was already copyright. > > > > > >I'm would be foolish to donate land for a public park without ensuring > >that and noone could come along, erect a small fence and claim it as > >their own personal or commercial property. > > > >Releasing a font under GPL or OFL license simply ensures the font can > >freely be used or modified by anyone and that no one can claim > >proprietary or commercial rights. > > > >If somebody does want a similar font to sell under a commercial license > >I'm perfectly willing to develop one for them for a fair price. > My vision is more along the lines of: > > Someone takes a basic, high quality font with a copycenter license or public > domain dedication. > They use that as a base, making it into "the banana font" and Sarah's Swirly > Sans Serif, then sells those as commercial fonts. If you look at the > programming post, you will see how the best programmers know how to use > snippets of > other people's work to create their own. I also imagine someone may grab > glyphs, etc. from several different open fonts, combine them into one, with > their > own style... > > > The CC-BY License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > > > >This license requires attribution - and for any *reuse* or distribution, > >requires that the original license terms must be made clear to others. > > > >Does this mean if someone uses a font under this license to print a book > >(which could be considered a kind of "reuse") that the original license > >terms must be printed or indicated in the book? Does there have to be an > >attribution? > > Rejon, you work for CC, can you explain this to us? > CC Licenses are somewhat long, have some quirks, and mainly people get > confused between CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-SA-ND, etc...I've seen too many > webpages & > content which simply say you may reuse this (whatever it is I created) under > a Creative Commons license, but then failing to say which one, which leaves > people in the dark as to what the author is saying they can and cannot do > with the content.
CC discourages use of cc licenses for fonts. I am not a fulltime employee of cc anymore and am only really work on a couple of projects more like freelance/contractor right now for cc. The CC website does a good job of explaining the differences between the licenses far better than I: http://creativecommons.org/about/license/ I would break cc licenses down as: Free (CC BY, CC BY-SA), non-free (the other 4). Then all current licenses require attribution (aka a linkback and/or credit to the author(s). Jon <snip /> -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org IM/skype: kidproto Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
