You say the licensing information is a separate issue, so I'll remove
that and unmark the duplicate.
Meanwhile, you are probably correct that I am missing the point. To me,
even excluding the licensing information, you seem to be conflating
three distinct issues.
1. You say there is a "strong negative connotation" for font designers
to have open fonts to be labelled as "free". I haven't seen this offense
myself, and it is so counter to the attitude I see in authors of other
kinds of open source material (software, art, Wikipedia articles, music)
that I hope you'll understand me not just taking your word for it. So,
are there any recorded examples of this offense that you can point to?
2. You say that to call an open font "Free" is to "mislabel it". If this
issue is real, it's probably the most easily fixable of the three. So,
can you give an example of any open font available in Ubuntu Software
Center that is not, in fact, free? (I would be delighted if font
designers sold open fonts through USC for whatever price they like. But
as far as I know, nothing like that has happened yet.)
3. You say it is "offensive to authors of open fonts when their work is
lumped together with 'Free' stuff". Any solution to issue #1 would not
fix this issue, because that is about language whereas this is about
grouping. But I don't understand exactly what distinction you're trying
to make here. Is it just about fonts "allowing
use/study/modification/redistribution" versus "maybe-distribute-but-
don't-modify-fonts"? (As far as I can tell, the only fonts in the latter
category right now are mathematica-fonts and the ttf-ipafont set.) Or is
it something else, like fonts by designers that are/aren't
professionally trained?
** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 435183
Doesn't display information about exact software license
** Summary changed:
- Improve misleading description of fonts entries
+ Misleading description of fonts entries
** Description changed:
- Binary package hint: software-center
-
The software centre has a Fonts section but entries in that section
indicate they are "free": please do not use this term as it has strongly
negative connotation in the typeface design community and corresponds to
maybe-distribute-but-don't-modify-fonts usually of low quality. Open
fonts (or libre/open fonts) is much much preferred and corresponds to
font software allowing use/study/modification/redistribution.
- The license label of each entry does not show the specific licensing terms
the particular font is released under by upstream.
- Please show the explicit font license chosen by author because different
licenses have different requirements on the end-user: especially with issues
concerning embedding.
-
- Various fonts we package and maintain in our upstream Debian pkg-fonts
- team now have DEP-5 copyright metadata (or are on track to include it
- soon). Please make use of that information.
+ [This report previously also asked for display of more specific license
+ information, which is already covered by bug 435183.]
** Changed in: software-center (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
Misleading description of fonts entries
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/666539
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
