Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: >On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:52 PM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: >> There's an open question in my mind as to what constitutes a "non-free >>font," > >In this context, I mean "non-free" in the context of libre rather than >gratis.[1] > >[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
Right. The "libre" part is what I consider a legal issue, though I think I understand more clearly now that you're talking about technical policy here. >There are a number of fonts that can be downloaded for free (gratis) >but are under terms along the lines of a CC -NC or -ND license, and >there are more that are distributed with various popular operating >systems so many people already have them for "free" in the loosest >sense. I'm not counting these as free here. Thank you for clarifying this point. It might be helpful to have a list of gratis/libre fonts and a list of gratis/non-libre fonts, if such lists don't exist already. As far as I know, MediaWiki (core) has historically preferred to specify nothing more than sans-serif. There now seems to be a trend away from this. <https://www.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guiding_principles#Freedom_and_open_source> is a citation for my earlier claim that Wikimedia prefers free to non-free. Nemo_bis pointed me toward this related discussion as well: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/2012-October/000191.html>. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
