[Openfontlibrary] new release of the Ubuntu titling font

[Dave Crossland]

From: Gustavo Ferreira <grilo at centroin.com.br>
On 02/01/2008, at 07:53, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> > And notice how font sources (FontLab) and the build script are also
> > released. A very good sign :)
>
> yes, it is important to note that designers don't need to work
> exclusively with free tools to collaborate with free software projects.
>
> the build script is not functional, since it uses functions from a
> module which is not publicly available. nothing that prevents anyone
> from working on the font using his own tools though.

I cannot make use of these font sources since I cannot, in good
conscience, use FontLab. (To use any proprietary font development
software means betraying everyone here by using software I cannot
share with you, and also means giving up my freedom to understand and
change the software on my computer and asking you to do the same to
yourself. Both these aspects of proprietary software are social
problems that the free software movement aims to solve.)

When developing things collaboratively in a community, if that
community is to be called "open," it is essential that the community
does not exclude people using free software.

Designers don't _need_ to work exclusively with free tools to
collaborate with free software projects - although they _ought_ to -
but they do _need_ to use unrestricted file formats.

FontLab VFBs are _not_ free formats. There are two I know of, UFO and SFD.

The XML schema "UFO" developed by the Robofab project could be a free
format, suitable for FontForge-FontLab collaboration since both
programs already read and write it, but I'm not sure it technically
can encode all the information that is encoded in a VFB file.

The 'Unix style text format' "SFD" developed by the George Williams as
part of the FontForge project could be a suitable too, if a FontLab
python script was developed that exported all the source information
into that format, like the Robofab UFO exporter.

While data-fully-inclusive and free source file formats that work with
FontLab are being developed for tomorrow, the LGPL and GPL require
that source code (including _full_ build scripts) be distributed with
object code, today.

So developers of fonts under those licenses who use FontLab are
required to distribute the full VFBs and the complete set of build
scripts that they used to develop the font.

I have contacted Christian Robertson about this - I trust its a
genuine mistake that the build scripts are incomplete :-) - by leaving
a comment on the blog post URL that starts this thead:

-- 8< --
> > ... be aware that you inherit the copyright and licensing of
> > upstream: currently LGPL2
>
> I assumed this was the assumption, but there seems to be some
> confusion here. What do I need to do to make it explicit that this font
> inherits the upstream license and trademark (even though it didn't
> necessarily inherit any of the specific point data)? Are there files
> that I should put into the zip? I'm a noob at open source
> contributions :)

I'm preparing a small essay about this issue; Gustavo has extended a
GPL font published by another GNU/Linux distributor, Red Hat and their
Liberation fonts, and ran into the very same questions about how to
proceed within the terms of the license.

The first thing to do is check that all the build scripts you used to
make the OTF font are included in the zip file along with the VFB data
:-)
-- 8< --

When a suitable format arrives, we could in the future require source
to be made available in that format and reject VFB files.

Until then, given everyone is required to redistribute
non-free-file-format sources with font object files (TTF/OTF) and
given that the Open Font Library should accept such fonts, I suggest
we (the OFLB) make a clear statement that using proprietary
development tools is antisocial and distribute that statement with
those fonts.

This is obviously my personal opinion, and I think that all the people
involved with the Open Font Library at this stage ought to decide
things in a democratic way. So I think we ought to establish some kind
of legal infrastructure to appoint a leadership committee and identify
genuine OFLB members and count votes over these issues.

Also, I'm aware of the Debian project having some good democratic
tools to identify people and count votes, and processes for stating
issues and voting on them. MJ Ray has a lot of experience about this,
and he lives near me geographically so I hope to meet him face to face
this month to discuss. Nicolas Spalinger is also active in the Debian
font project although I don't know if he's a "Debian Developer"
officially. hope they'll explain some more about that stuff here, for
those unfamiliar.

The Software Freedom Law Center's light weight "Conservancy" seems an
excellent way to go about the legal side:

"The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization composed of Free
and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects. As a fiscal sponsor for FOSS
projects, the Conservancy provides member projects with free financial
and administrative services, but does not involve itself with
technological and artistic decisions.

By joining the Conservancy, member FOSS projects obtain the benefits
of a formal legal structure while keeping themselves focused on
software development. These benefits include, most notably, protection
from personal liability for project developers. Another benefit of
joining the Conservancy is that projects can use it to hold assets,
which are managed by the Conservancy on behalf of and at the direction
of the project. The Conservancy is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3)
organization, so member projects can receive tax-deductible donations
to the extent allowed by law. To make a donation to the Conservancy or
to its member projects, please visit our donations page.

If you think your FOSS project might benefit from joining the
Conservancy, please contact us."
-- http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/

We would also get the ability to accept donations to the project, and
the ability to seek legal advice from real lawyers about licensing
issues such as this. Those 2 things in itself make joining the
conservancy worthwhile IMO.

On the other hand, we could appoint a benevolent dictator, like in the
Linux Kernel and Python Language projects, which I guess at the moment
is Jon Phillips ;-) I'm personally not keen on that, but if we the
OFLB can't muster enough interest in democratic process, how else will
we resolve such policy/political issues?

-- 
Regards,
Dave