Vernon Adams skribis:
> > This is a follow on to the recent thread "OFL-FAQ update draft and web
> > fonts paper" that Victor Gaultney started.
> >
> > The OFL faq update draft and the way a few large foundries have started
> > serving OFL'd webfonts brought to my attention the way OFL'd fonts
Dave Crossland skribis:
> On 22 May 2013 22:41, Vernon Adams wrote:
> > Any chance you can give an 'idiots guide' on how a trademark license
> > would preserved some of the effects of the RFN? I'm unsure how
> > and when this trademark license would work? What would it be
> > aimed at preventing?
Vernon Adams skribis:
> On 22 May 2013, at 13:45, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> > I want to see libre fonts as widely used as possible while remaining libre.
>
> Agreed. However, it's the 'remaining libre' aspect that is my
> concern. You know, we have the situation at present where at least
> one
On 1 May 2013, at 16:44, Claus Eggers Sørensen wrote:
> Great, but why was this work done?
vernon adams skribis:
> So (their) fonts would look better rendered on screens?
I would assume they did it to advance the state of the art and support
human progress. For years I’ve been wanting them to
Dave Crossland skribis:
> Continuing to noodle on this, I suppose we (I) should reach out to the
> users and ask them what they want out of OFLB.
Quit trying to be fancy and do so much at once. If you cannot provide
easy, editable uploads and easy, straightforward downloads with a
_usable_ font d
Jon Phillips quotes this exchange:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM, vern adams wrote:
> >
> > On 28 Mar 2012, at 09:41, Robert Martinez wrote:
> >
> >> It appears that google has no other business than to hoarde OFL licenced
> >> fonts.
> >
> > That's a funny way to word it :)
> > i think you
Schrijver skribis:
> TTF’s also don’t support OpenType features, which are going to be
> supported by Firefox. Does anyone know how this is for WOFF?
TTF does support OT features (it's just that earlier versions of the
format exist that don't support OT, and so there is a lot of software
support
"j...@rejon.org" skribis:
> In the future, I hope that SIL Open Font License could move to be
> compatible with future CC licenses...that would make much more
> sense...at the time of SIL Open Font License, CC said not into fonts.
> I think that is diff. now...
The trouble with CC licenses is tha
"j...@rejon.org" skribis:
> http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2010/07/27/the-issue-of-li.html
Does CC have a FAQ to explain what this article means to humans? :)
vernon adams skribis:
> There's a debate about on whether Ubuntu are failing the open source
> ethos by not releasing the font until it's 'finished'.
That's just a problem in reading or speech comprehension.
> Interestingly there's an argument that fonts can't practically be
> released whilst in
Uploading a zip of the new version of OFL Goudy didn't have the same
effect as uploading it the first time. I nearly threw things at my
screen. :) I wasn't going to upload one file at a time and ended up
deleting the old version and uploading from scratch. That isn't going
to work very well with @f
fontfree...@aol.com skribis:
> We need to have a discussion on the differences between CC-PD and CCZero.
> Most if not all Public Domain fonts in the openfontlibrary are CC-PD, not
> CCZero.
My older fonts already are explicitly CC-PD. To me this ends up being
more trouble than it is worth, be
Eric Schrijver skribis:
> Well, I guess we can take heart in the increasing dpi of hand-held
> devices.
> That should trickle to desktop displays
I'm not too hopeful about that removing the problem, given that I can
easily change the rendering of my laser printer by fiddling with the
PostScript h
Is OFLB supposed to reject a fontlog just because it doesn't have an
extension? Because that's what it seems to have done with my Sorts
Mill Goudy.
Also the list of "valid file types" does not include Adobe feature
files, not to mention other possible necessities for full openness,
such as Python
Schrijver skribis:
> He mentioned that hinting actually is the bottleneck for new fonts
> for the screen, whether open source or commercial: it costs a huge
> amount of time, and the required knowledge and skill are rare.
The problem probably would go away if we put as much effort into
making re
Nathan Willis skribis:
> Ronaldson
I wouldn't do that one, because Canada Type came out with theirs just
a couple of years ago and they are very nice.
IMO we could use a good Caslon. I'm working on a Kis/Janson, which is
similar, but often do not finish my work, and Caslon is more familiar.
I s
Barry Schwartz skribis:
> Alexandre Prokoudine skribis:
> > Speaking of preferences, there seems to be a demand for an open source
> > Jenson.
>
> Hands off! That's what I've been working on. :)
D'oh! It's 3:30 in the morning, obviously. I have been working on a
Janson, not a Jenson. :)
Alexandre Prokoudine skribis:
> Speaking of preferences, there seems to be a demand for an open source Jenson.
Hands off! That's what I've been working on. :)
(However, I never promise to finish. I do use the half-finished fonts
for my LiveJournal:
http://chemoelectric.livejournal.com/friends )
Jonadab the Unsightly One skribis:
> And let me expand on that a little more: since the Google Font
> Directory fonts are not just ASCII but Latin-1 (plus Euro and maybe a
> couple of other things), they're good for almost all websites written
> in not just English but virtually any European lang
Ben Laenen skribis:
> Eric Schrijver wrote:
> > I do think all this shows hinting is still a bit of a black art. Am I
> > correct in thinking that most projects could at first get by using the
> > automated hinting of the design programs? Or is that typographic
> > blasphemy :)
>
> Well, you can
Eric Schrijver skribis:
> I do think all this shows hinting is still a bit of a black art. Am I
> correct in thinking that most projects could at first get by using the
> automated hinting of the design programs? Or is that typographic
> blasphemy :)
My opinion is based on PostScript hinting; fo
fontfree...@aol.com skribis:
> >We've got to start making these fontforge changes ourselves, but I'm
> >not happy working on a program that is written in glorified PDP-11
> >assembly language. Doing that is how I ended up disabled. :)
>
> Let me guess, you wish the whole thing was written in P
Khaled Hosny skribis:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 05:12:30PM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote:
> > Khaled Hosny wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:32:48AM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Peter Baker wrote:
> > > > > Couple of quick points. First, the FontForge format h
Alexandre Prokoudine skribis:
> I'm finally looking inside
> http://oflb.open-fonts.org/foo-open-font-sources-2.0.tar.gz that
> Nicolas mentioned during his talk at LGM. Is there some kind of
> description of the recommended workflow? Like doing everything in
> separate UFO files and then combinin
Ben Laenen skribis:
> Anyway, FontForge's normalized SFD format is by far the best we've got
> for collaborative font development.
Actually, George Williams has recommended OpenType. As if to prove so,
he has those extra tables in which you can stash the same information
as would go into the sfd.
Schrijver skribis:
> I tried it shortly but it wasn’t working out, probably because I
> messed to much with my keyboard settings already: I’ll look into
> it. I don’t have my linux computer with me now though so I can’t
> try—I already miss it, actually :-) My first experience with Linux
> is quit
vernon adams skribis:
> The onus is on open, not free. That seems to be in line with the oflb.
> It's secondary that the software is free (as in ££$$).
"Open" is almost worthless when it comes to fonts; it is uncommon to
find a font that isn't in a fixable and modifiable. Sure, it would be
nice t
Dave Crossland skribis:
> So the text by the icons at the top saying "Get: Download Fonts,
> Share: Upload Your Fonts, Remix: Improve & Extend" isn't clear
> enough... okay.
It's not at all clear that the site has anything to do with free
software. The name of the site adds to the confusion betwe
Dave Crossland skribis:
> On 9 May 2010 02:14, Garrick Van Buren wrote:
> >
> > The short answer is - I like them and they're consistent with the
> > direction Kernest is pointing. Just need to work out the specifics.
>
> s/free/libre? :-)
Oh, just rewrite everything in Esperanto. :)
Nicolas Spalinger skribis:
> I like the way you're not hiding the origin, license and other metadata
> of the libre/open fonts you include in your catalog (Ahem unlike others
> apparently: http://readableweb.com/typekit-and-copyright-fraud/ but they
> promised they will work on clarifying it..)
Oh, I forgot to say: An easy way to see what fonts are used at a site
is the Font Finder extension for Firefox:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4415
Dave Crossland skribis:
> What isn't working now is support in the GCFP interactive typesetting
> system for full families, because I can't figure out how to pass the
> family variants to pcfp. The output of fc-list as the Apache user is:
I don't know the details, but as a general matter you do n
Khaled Hosny skribis:
> Well, things are changing now with the advent of LuaTeX, thanks to its
> backward compatibility, it is taking slowly over TeX world (see ConTeXt
> for example, which is being rewritten in Lua), unlike ANT which never
> gained momentum.
ANT, written almost entirely by one g
Khaled Hosny skribis:
> But how OFLB is going to fix this, I don't think you are suggesting that
> we (OFLB community, whatever it means) rewrite most of free software
> text layout stack (and funny "DTP" applications) to support advanced
> typography. So, I think you mean writing smaller applicat
Khaled Hosny skribis:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:29:00AM +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> > Dave? Ben? Jon? What about the new site?
>
> I'm holding my breath for a functional GNU hurd on which I'll run LaTeX3
> using final STIX fonts downloaded from the new OFLB website.
If I may interject a
fontfree...@aol.com skribis:
> For many software authors, yes, they can make more with open source, but
> for MOST authors of software libraries, that is simply false. Programmers
> understand that releasing their software libraries as proprietary will make
> more money in the long run.
The w
Dave Crossland skribis:
> I give a hoot, because if I am mistaken, that would have interesting
> implications for my work :-)
I meant, of course, whether the literature's copyright holder cared;
the plain text file, which I recently used, and I guess unlike the
GPL, has nothing in it showing that
Dave Crossland skribis:
> Since no permission to modify the OFL text has been given
> to anyone ...
How do you know this?
I haven't been following too closely, but since there is still a
dispute I imagine that no one has asked whether permission was given
or whether anyone gives a hoot.
Christoph Schäfer skribis:
> Hi Dave,
>
> in other circumstances I'd enjoy a detailed discussion, but a dictum stating
> a
> font is "not legally redistributable" simply because the creator uses a
> modified license defies not only common sense, but also the "spirit" of open
> licensing.
I
j_mach_w...@shared-files.de skribis:
> On Wed Sep 16 16:59:06 PDT 2009, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > Add it the queue at http://www.openfontlibrary.org/wiki/Existing_Free_Fonts
> > :-)
>
> Does this mean it is not possible to upload a GPLv3 + Font Exception
> font to the OpenFontLibrary? I have t
40 matches
Mail list logo
