--- Comment #24 from ---
(In reply to syed.wamiq from comment #23)
> (In reply to urdu.text from comment #22)
> > * only "Nafees Web Naskh" was released under GPL (it is dual license). The
> > rest of nafees family has a custom license. In any case, "Nafees Nastaleeq"
> > being an early effort is not used anymore. 
> > * many of the nastaleeq font "owners" cannot release it under any license as
> > they have borrowed from Nuri commercial font.
> > * Amiri font is used on ar.wikipedia and is also suitable for Urdu as it has
> > many nastaleeq like shapes. This could be added to give users a choice in
> > addition to "Nafees Web Naskh."
> > 
> > * need to come out of "windows only" mindset. wikipedia cannot be for for
> > windows-only viewers.
> I think you didn't get the point. The licence for Hussaini Nastaliq is
> compatible with Wikipedia; MIT is not just a custom licence. Next, Hussaini
> isn't based on ligatures. Others may have borrowed ligatures from the Nuri
> one, but this is a font with no pre-composed ligatures, very much like
> Microsoft's proprietary font Urdu Typesetting (and the huge variation in
> letter shapes means no borrowing between Hussaini and Microsoft's font).
> All these facts show that Hussaini is just as good as Nafees Naskh.

I tried Hussaini on Linux/firefox. It has all the aesthetic shortcoming of the
venerable "Nafees Nastaleeq." Not suitable for use aesthetic wise. License
wise, it cannot have an open license as the parent "Nafees Nastaleeq" was never
released under an open license.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list

Reply via email to