> I think requiring the font exception would be ideal - ie, removing the > 2nd category above. > >FWIW, I don't agree. I liked your earlier conception much better: if >it's under a free software license, it can be in OFLB. For one thing, >it makes for a much simpler decision process than "we accept free >licenses a, b, c, but not d, e, and f". What basis is there to exclude >some? > >It is possible a font designer would *choose* to license under GPL >without font exception. Not that I know of any actual examples, it's >always just been ignorance, but it's conceivable. > > the largest collection I know of are the URW fonts that are > distributed as part of Ghostscript, which predate the "font > exception." > >A form of the GPL font exception appears in the PFB's of most of the URW >font packages I have seen, although whether it was legally added, I >don't know. Aladdin and URW don't answer on these topics, in my >experience :(.
Adding a font embedding exception to any license does make it (the license) non-canonical to start with. 2ndly...is it really needed? An open source license by itself should be enough to embed fonts in documents. Each license needs to be evaluated to see if it really needs a font embedding exception. 3rd...IF for whatever reason someone wanted this, it would be possible to use an open source license for a font, but NOT allow embedding. (That would have to be in a hypothetical derivative / add on license & in the font's metadata settings.) It's actually probably more likely an open source font author made some mistake in including a no embedding option in the font metadata, at least in the case of an open source font with a no embedding option engaged. Ghostscript also includes the Hershey Fonts, a set of public domain fonts... I've wondered if there are modern versions of the Hershey Fonts avalible, ie .ttf & .otf. The Hershey fonts are a standout among public domain fonts insofar as they are not dedicated to the public domain, instead they were created by the U.S. Federal Government. (whose works are public domain) A common distribution of the Hershey fonts includes this statement: USE RESTRICTION: This distribution of the Hershey Fonts may be used by anyone for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, providing that: 1. The following acknowledgements must be distributed with the font data: - The Hershey Fonts were originally created by Dr. A. V. Hershey while working at the U. S. National Bureau of Standards. - The format of the Font data in this distribution was originally created by James Hurt Cognition, Inc. 900 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821 (mit-eddie!ci-dandelion!hurt) 2. The font data in this distribution may be converted into any other format *EXCEPT* the format distributed by the U.S. NTIS (which organization holds the rights to the distribution and use of the font data in that particular format). Not that anybody would really *want* to use their format... each point is described in eight bytes as "xxx yyy:", where xxx and yyy are the coordinate values as ASCII numbers. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I wonder if NTIS's format provides more accuracy than James Hurt's format. I also wonder about the accuracy of _2. The font data..._ Seems very dubious. If all he did was convert NTIS's data, nobody would have to follow these usage restrictions at all, #1 or #2. **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)
