[Openfontlibrary] more updates on Open Font Library
dave at lab6.com
Mon Oct 23 03:50:50 PDT 2006
On 23/10/06, Jon Phillips <jon at rejon.org> wrote:
> > Open Font License
> > CC licenses
> > FreeArt license
> > GNU GPL v2
> I'm not sure...fonts are a very murky area which pushes me to think
> public domain is the way (like clip art)
I will write about this ASAP, but I think public domain is a bad idea
for fonts - like you say, its a murky area, and the OFL does the best
Real life is literally tugging at my coattails, so I'll keep it terse:
> The Open Font License sounds reasonable, but I'm curious to hear more
> ideas about its usage.
The success of FLOSS is centered around a solid foundation of
consensus about the GPL.
The success of the Free Font Movement  depends very much around
The Open Font License is a Free license recognised by the pillars of
the community (FontForge , OSI, FSF, FDo, Debian, GNOME, KDE, etc
etc) that is specifically written for Fonts.
Existing Free Font projects have recently switched or are considering
switching to the OFL. 
I believe the OFLicense should therefore be the only option for the
OFLibrary, to help accelerate the momemtum of the OFLicense.
I'd concede using the GPL for historic compatibility like Unifont ,
but I'd rather persuade font projects currently using the GPL to start
using the OFL and then offering their OFL version on OFLibrary.
Sorry for being terse, gotta go!
LinuxLibertine and Consolata are OFL/GPL dual or OFL, and there is
movement torwards OFL at Bitstream :-)
More information about the Openfontlibrary