Philippe, I presume your response was intended for Luke. If not, you may
want to re-read the thread.
On 09/10/16 15:37, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also
> explicitly allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
> http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.ph
Philippe Verdy wrote:
I did not receive the message from David Starner you are quoting, it
was probably not sent to this list but I did not received it privately
(not even in my "spam mailbox").
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m10/0134.html
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US |
I did not receive the message from David Starner you are quoting, it was
probably not sent to this list but I did not received it privately (not
even in my "spam mailbox").
Anyway I agree with your response, David Starner has a strange
interpretation of this common word (notably in the context what
David Starner responded,
>> The word "free" when applied to any product means "free of charge".
>
> Using the word "product" sort of biases your argument, does it not?
Webster's defines "product" as something produced by nature, industry,
or art. So an apple is a product whether it's a wild appl
I meant the **complete** coverage. Basic Greek and Basic Cyrillic is not
enough.
Also I did not say that Hebrew, Georgian, Armenian and Cherokee were
included, this was a suggestion (Cherokee being largely an adaptation of
Latin+Greek+Cyrillic with some additional strokes for new letters, it could
În data de Sun, 9 Oct 2016 16:14:50 +0200, Philippe Verdy a scris:
> And the Noto project is not finished :
>
> - Its monospace can still be improved to cover more than just Latin
> and general punctuation.
> - Adding Cyrillic, Greek, and a few other scripts that work well in
> monospace styles (
This was not the first prority of the project I think. Monospace fonts were
used for text input in web forms but this old use id now deprecating,
except probably for CJK, due to poor readability and design and the
inability to handle lot of scripts.
Monospace fonts are still used for programming la
I am disappointed with Noto Mono, which only covers Latin script, and not
Greek, and Cyrillic when most existing monospace fonts do.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>
> 2016-10-09 8:17 GMT+02:00 Luke Dashjr :
>
>> On Sunday, October 09, 2016 4:37:24 AM Philippe Verdy wrot
2016-10-09 8:17 GMT+02:00 Luke Dashjr :
> On Sunday, October 09, 2016 4:37:24 AM Philippe Verdy wrote:
> > The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also
> explicitly
> > allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
> > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL
>
> No, i
the future.
Don Osborn
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: James Kass
Sender: "Unicode" Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 16:20:20
To: Unicode Public
Subject: Re: Noto unified font
Philippe Verdy wrote,
> Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collec
În data de Sun, 9 Oct 2016 00:00:33 +, Luke Dashjr a scris:
> It forbids sale of the font by itself.
I would say "big deal".
A font belongs merely to the "cultural" side of a project or product. I this
area it is better to discourage any commercial interests in order to serve
better the cu
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 11:07 PM James Kass wrote:
> The word "free" when applied to any product means "free of charge".
>
Using the word "product" sort of biases your argument, does it not?
"Freeware" appears to be a contraction of "free software". If so, the
> two terms are identical in meani
On Sunday, October 09, 2016 4:37:24 AM Philippe Verdy wrote:
> The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also explicitly
> allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
> http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL
No, it doesn't. That link is just a commentary, and of no r
Philippe Verdy wrote,
> The purpose is not to invent new designs but present designs
> that are easily read and convenient for each script ...
Based on what I've seen so far, Monotype has done a splendid job. No
doubt involving plenty of design work. Philippe Verdy has outlined
some of the desi
The licence itself says it respects the 4 FSF freedoms. It also explicitly
allows reselling (rule DFSG #1):
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL
It is not directly compatible with the GPL in a composite product, but with
LGPL there's no problem, and there's no problem if
2016-10-09 2:20 GMT+02:00 James Kass :
> Philippe Verdy wrote,
>
> > Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts
> made
> > specifically for each script ...
>
> In a constantly changing world, it should be a pleasant experience to
> be reminded that some things remain co
On 09/10/16 13:50, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote:
>> On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
>>> It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(
FSF appears to classify OFL as a Free license (though incompatible with
the GNU GPL & FD
On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(
Which alternate license would you recommend?
cya,
#
On Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:08:05 AM Harshula wrote:
> On 09/10/16 10:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > It's unfortunate they released it under the non-free OFL license. :(
>
> Which alternate license would you recommend?
MIT license or LGPL seem reasonable and common among free fonts. Some also
cho
That's not "his" definition of non-free. Restrictions on selling copies
commercially violate the Free Software Foundation's definition of non-free:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses
And also the Open Source Initiativ
That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and
of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone
else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort
into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the
moral
Philippe Verdy wrote,
> Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts made
> specifically for each script ...
In a constantly changing world, it should be a pleasant experience to
be reminded
that some things remain constant.
Whether the Noto font family is released as o
Interested to know why you think OFL is non-free...
On 9 Oct 2016 05:18, "Luke Dashjr" wrote:
> On Saturday, October 08, 2016 5:57:41 PM James Kass wrote:
> > Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all
> > languages:
> > https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/06/google-and-monoty
It forbids sale of the font by itself. (I'm aware the FSF thinks there's a
loophole by bundling "hello world", but I don't think this would hold up in
court.)
On Saturday, October 08, 2016 11:50:40 PM Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Interested to know why you think OFL is non-free...
>
> On 9 Oct 20
On Saturday, October 08, 2016 5:57:41 PM James Kass wrote:
> Google and Monotype unveil The Noto Project's unified font for all
> languages:
> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/06/google-and-monotype-unveil-the-noto-proje
> cts-unified-font-for-all-languages/
It's unfortunate they released it under t
Technically it is not a single font but a coherent collection of fonts made
specifically for each script (some scripts having several national
variants, notably for sinographs, most of them having two styles except
symbols, most of them having two weights, except symbols that have a single
weight a
26 matches
Mail list logo
