[Openfontlibrary] On font release practices…

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Hi,

Some of you may have wondered why I insist all the time on detached
licenses and other boring bureaucratic stuff. Here is what happens when
the font author dumps a raw font file with little context:

(10:43:38) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: ping
(10:44:41) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: pong
(10:44:47) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: what's the usual recommended course of
action when "upstream" of a font only provides a ttf and an otf file?
ie., no license or tarball
10:45
(10:45:25) LyosNorezel: by "no license" I mean no license file...
(10:45:48) nim-nim: you can package the OTF file directly
(10:46:15) nim-nim: however be aware that lack of detached license file
often leads quickly to licensing mess
(10:46:30) LyosNorezel: hmmm...
(10:46:40) LyosNorezel: it's an OFL font...
(10:47:12) nim-nim: see bug #455153 for a recent example
(10:47:13) buggbot: Bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=455153 medium,
medium, ---, Nicolas Mailhot, NEEDINFO , Review Request:
asana-math-fonts - An OpenType font with a MATH table
(10:47:19) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: should I just include a generic OFL
license file?
(10:47:58) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: nope, the rules ask to never include a
license file upstream didn't distribute
(10:48:40) nim-nim: we had too many cases of misunderstanding where a
well-willing packager included a file which didn't correspong, in fact,
to what upstream wanted
(10:48:51) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: hrmm... that seems like it'd wind up a
legal mess too complex to solve
(10:49:34) nim-nim: also the OFL asks the font author to declare
reserved font names in the license text
(10:49:49) nim-nim: which is difficult when there is no license text
(10:49:56) LyosNorezel:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/Nasenbaer/199 <<-- the font in
question
10:50
(10:50:29) nim-nim: OFLB sucks for this, they don't make it easy for
authors to uploads zips so they forget
(10:50:54) nim-nim: the correct procedure in this case is
(10:51:20) LyosNorezel: contact upstream?
(10:51:20) nim-nim: 1. double-check via google there is no report the
font did something legally bad
(10:51:48) nim-nim: 2. if the font author declares it used some other
font as source check this other font licensing
(10:52:00) nim-nim: 3. package the font file directly
(10:52:36) nim-nim: 4. ask nicely the author to re-release it in a nice
versionned zip with detached license file and (if he uses fontforge) sfd
sources
(10:53:10) nim-nim: it will work on some upstreams
(10:53:31) nim-nim: on others you have to package anyway, and wait till
enough distros complain they change their practices
(10:53:59) LyosNorezel: this is odd...
(10:54:20) LyosNorezel: google indicates a second "upstream" site
(10:54:22) LyosNorezel:
http://xoops.widelands.org/modules/wfdownloads/singlefile.php?cid=13&lid=37
(10:54:26) nim-nim: this is real life
10:55
(10:55:08) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: if it's the same author take the most
recent web site
(10:55:18) nim-nim: this also happens pretty often
(10:56:41) nim-nim: LyosNorezel:
http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/chemoelectric/208 shows that
uploading zip files to OFLB is possible
(10:57:36) LyosNorezel: nim-nim: that's another thing that makes this
odd... one site is dated 9-27-07 and the other 9-28-07... both appear to
be the same file
(10:58:06) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: this is why the fonts SIG has pretty
long packaging guidelines so packagers do not have to re-invent the same
solutions to the same problems all the time
(10:58:46) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: just means the author forgot to update
one site, and did it the day after :p
(10:59:15) nim-nim: or that he did both sites at once but that they're
not in the same timezone
(10:59:23) LyosNorezel: hrm... well... I think I'm gonna let this one go
to someone else...
11:00
(11:00:28) nim-nim: I think you'll find out this kind of small
distribution mistakes is rather commonplace
(11:00:46) nim-nim: we just need to convince enough authors to mend
their ways
(11:00:54) nim-nim: so they serve as example to others
(11:01:15) nim-nim: I used to do some java packaging before
(11:01:29) nim-nim: java projects are much worse than font projects
(11:02:07) LyosNorezel: it a distribution mistake that can cause some
serious migraines for the users... and I have no interest in getting
more migraines.. I get enough from the stress of my fast paced life
(11:02:37) LyosNorezel: err... s/users/developers
(11:02:49) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: the packager main job is to fix the
mistakes so end-users are not expose to it
(11:02:53) nim-nim: posed
(11:04:40) nim-nim: even perl packages which follow rigid CPAN rules are
not always packaging-clean
(11:04:54) LyosNorezel: I like the font... but not well enough to expose
myself to more migraines... this one is a definate pass
11:05
(11:07:59) nim-nim: LyosNorezel: your free choice

(raw un-cooked irc log with PC-free echanges)

Please take the time to release your fonts in distributor-friendly
formats.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/attachments/20080713/e2ca38df/attachment.pgp