[Openfontlibrary] Some suggestions
jon at rejon.org
Thu Dec 8 11:15:36 PST 2005
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 13:32 +0000, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> Nicu Buculei wrote:
> > Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> >> 2. It is not good to distribute fonts individually as TTF files but
> >> as an archive (such as ZIP, 7Z, TGZ), because they should include
> >> some license.
> > Is not possible to embed the license in the metadata, the same way we
> > are including it at OCAL?
> Indeed, proper Free fonts include the licence material in the header as
> well. End-users typically cannot see this unless they search deeply.
> They typically can see the "(c) BY XYZ" line but not more.
> Available fonts may fall in different categories, Free, freeware (but
> not for commercial use), freeware (but no derivative works), freeware
> (but cannot embed in document due to GPL as it forces the document to be
> covered by the GPL) and so on.
> >> 3. Public domain fonts do not provide freedom (a la FSF), they are
> >> bad :)
> > I think you are confused here, see
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> > "Public Domain
> > Being in the public domain is not a license--rather, it means the
> > material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically
> > speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well
> > have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public
> > domain status is compatible with the GNU GPL."
> In the case of fonts, I would be happier if the author went into the
> trouble to attach an Open license and other documentation in an archive.
> I can expect cases where non-free fonts are copied/added to make a new
> font. I know of one such case which would not have been spotted if it
> was a single TTF file.
> I believe the most important issue of all is to differentiate this site
> from those "1000 free font sites".
> >> 7. The Open Font License uses the initials OFL, which clashes with
> >> the Open Font Library.
> >> It might look a bit marketing-y on my side, I would feel that it
> >> would be better to change Library to something like Repository, as in
> >> Open Font Repository (OFR).
> >> This would mean a few more bucks to register the new domain name and
> >> some administration work. Would this be ok with you? Please?
> > IMO, "Repository" does not sound that good.
> > And I like us using the same naming scheme as our other project, Open
> > Clip Art Library
> Regarding other similar sites, see
> The first gives you a good understanding of what the font does, though
> it does not show "how" free each font is.
> The second is a collection of Free fonts.
Cool, it would be great to start collecting this information at our
San Francisco, CA
USA PH 510.499.0894
jon at rejon.org
MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto
Jabber Chat: rejon at gristle.org
IRC: rejon at irc.freenode.net
Open Clip Art Library (www.openclipart.org)
Creative Commons (www.creativecommons.org)
San Francisco Art Institute (www.sfai.edu)
More information about the Openfontlibrary