[Openfontlibrary] Why the OFL is the best Free Font license

[Dave Crossland]

Hi OFL-discuss and openfontlibrary,

I am learning typeface design and font development as a hobby (atm)
and am considering contributing my fonts to the official GNU Project.

Although the OFL is accepted as free, there is uncertainly as to its
acceptability for official GNU packages. Below, I explain why I think
it should be acceptable, and hope you have something to say :-)

Fonts are a funny kind of software.

One hint is that font software is written by people whose personal
identity is "artist", not "programmer".

Another hint is that font software is written using graphical editors
rather than text editors. This makes the concept of font sourcecode
tricky; the human-unreadable binary 'sourcecode' has perhaps a little
less metadata, like armature guidelines used to draw the glyph (letter
shapes) consistently, but is basically the same as the
human-unreadable binary 'compiled font'.

A final hint is that most people treat compiled fonts as data, not
functional software. This happens at a level of perception nearly
below consciousness. Typographers learn to increase their perception
of type, and because the perception is subtle, there are very big
differences between text on a computer screen and text on a printed
paper page.

I believe the OFL has been carefully written to resolve the strange
vagaries of font software.

The name restrictions and parasitic-profiteering provisions will
encourage quality Free Fonts to be written as without them, "artist"
font developers who feel strongly about "being ripped off" and
"artistic integrity" will not get involved. [1] The OFL also doesn't
distinguish between font sourcecode and a compiled font.

But despite these unusual features of a Free license, the OFL is
nevertheless still widely considered Free (FSF, OSI, DFSG, GNOME, KDE,
FreeDesktop.org, etc etc) and is copyleft. Copyleft is a Free Software
Foundation innovation that uses restrictions to paradoxically create
more freedom.

There is real momentum behind OFL solidarity. I believe the highest
quality Free Fonts are licensed under the OFL, and these set an
example to the Free Font community. I have begun to try and persuade
existing Free Font developers, and even Freeware Font developers, to
relicense under the OFL and create a Free Font commons under the OFL.
As part of learning typeface design and font development, I may
undertake a Masters in Typeface Design, and will personally write Free
Fonts.

It is my understanding that a proliferation of various incompatible
Free licenses can create Free Software ghettos, and retard the
progress of the Free Softare Movement; conversely, consolidation
around the GPL has been a epic boon for the Free Software Movement.[1]

So at this moment I feel that the OFL is the best license for Free
Fonts - better than the GPL, even with the font exception - and that
it would be a shame if OFL fonts cannot be contributed to the official
GNU Project.

[0]: The lack of involvement by people who are more "artist" than
"programmer" at an personal identity level has been a hindrance to the
FSF and the Free Software Movement IMO. Fork organisations like OSI
and CC have always managed to attract or budget for design, and have
attracted the public more because of it. This is something I hope to
change, though :-)

[1]: Most of the controversy around the GPLv3 I've seen boils down to
a fear that this solidarity in the community around the GPL will be
broken. Personally I feel the 'automatic upgrade' features in section
10 will prevent this.

--
Regards,
Dave