[Openfontlibrary] Non-Copyleft Openfontlibrary
jon at rejon.org
Sun Nov 2 09:47:27 PST 2008
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 17:14 +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> Christopher Fynn wrote:
> > Fontfreedom at aol.com wrote:
> >> The single priority I have for openfontlibrary is:
> >> Creating a new openfontlibrary without any copyleft fonts. (and banning
> >> any new ones from appearing)
> >> Initially, Openfontlibrary was created as a place for fonts dedicated to
> >> the Public Domain.
> IIRC various early contributors also expressed their willingness to
> review fonts under PD and get them re-released under something they find
> more adapted to the goals of the library.
> >> Things dedicated to the public domain are not
> >> copyleft. Copycenter licenses such as the BSD license, the MIT license,
> >> etc would also not be copyleft.
> Well, we can debate at length about where in the licensing spectrum we
> want to be... There are differing views and it's OK.
> Personally I agree that non-copyleft Free Software licenses like BSD,
> ISC and MIT/X11/Expat have a key role to play (they do already
> thankfully!) but I notice how bigger and more inclusive communities form
> around copyleft models because of the implicit trust and the lower
> possibilities of getting contributions locked away from the Commons. The
> Golden Rule, tit-for-tat, call it however you want... That's one of the
> reasons why my preference goes to copyleft for fonts and font sources.
> And more precisely "weak copyleft" for the OFL. If you branch you
> inherit the licensing of where you branched from. Providing source is
> recommended but not required.
> I'm interested in what others in the OFLB think on this subject.
> > Perhaps most people read "Open" to imply "Open Source" or FOSS.
> I associate "open" (as in the Open Font License) to the wide FLOSS
> Free/Libre and Open Source Sofware spectrum of communities: "open fonts"
> is designed to refer to unrestricted libre free software fonts. The
> "open" in Open Font License isn't linked to the "open source" brand.
> > I'm wondering how many generally useful fonts are truly "Public Domain"?
> > If you remove OFL and GPL'd fonts and similar from the Open Font Library
> > how many Public Domain fonts are left?
> A key issue to consider IMHO.
> Public domain is still very hairy is certain jurisdiction and causes
> problems as a global license.
> I'd say that a big portion of the fonts under PD have unclear background
> and sometimes dubious origin (taken from restricted fonts sometimes).
> One example was some blocks from MPH 2B Damase: see the thread on this
> list on Feb 2007 and Victor Gaultney's recommendations. There are
> obviously exceptions and legit PD fonts but my understanding from
> various designers is that this is the general feeling. If you are the
> author and stand behind a design, attach your name to it to create
> trust. If you don't care about the other rights/freedoms, use a license
> with attribution instead of PD. Honour the existing copyright
> mechanisms. Provide a history of the project (FONTLOG-like).
> OTOH using a Creative Commons combination for fonts themselves is
> discouraged by CC itself as these licenses are designed for content
> whereas fonts are software. Granted it's a special kind of software but
> it *is* software.
> >> I'm mostly afraid openfontlibrary is moving in the direction of becoming
> >> the (however small) sourceforge of fonts. (Sourceforge is a popular open
> >> source software website featuring mostly copyleft software.)
> >> If anyone would suggest the best way to make this happen, I'm all ears...
> >> Remember, I own the openfontlibrary.com and .net domains, the
> >> non-copyleft version of openfontlibrary could go there. I started
> >> talking privately with (rejon) about this idea last year, but that never
> >> really went anywhere.
> > Having one under openfontlibrary.org and another under
> > openfontlibrary.net or openfontlibrary.com sounds like a recipe for
> > confusion...
> Yes, agreed. Similar domain names pointing to sites with different
> policies/content is rather confusing. IMHO we don't want to abuse the
> trust of visitors/contributors. Wanting one and finding the other is
> less than ideal.
> >> I understand the majority (but not all) of the people involved with this
> >> project are pro-copyleft, but I really want to have a non-copyleft
> >> openfontlibrary.
> Mmm, sounds like if you want only fonts that can become proprietary
> again, and not a fuller spectrum (you mention banning copyleft fonts
> above) then IMHO a side project is probably best.
> >> FF
I strongly hope we can all work together on this. Please don't start a
side project on this. Simply we have the tools and capability to tag
fonts with pd or oflb or any other font license. Ideally, we work
together and have a grand ole time.
> Openfontlibrary mailing list
> Openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org
San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing
jon at rejon.org
Jabber: rejon at gristle.org
IRC: rejon at irc.freenode.net
More information about the Openfontlibrary