[OpenFontLibrary] OneClickOrgs beta - our environment is now ready
nicolas_spalinger at sil.org
Tue Dec 8 07:38:01 PST 2009
Ben Weiner wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2009, at 11:47, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
>> If it's the "Open" Font Library, I really think it should be reflected
>> in our objectives a bit more clearly.
>> I feel that the OFLB is more of a catalog and a meta open-foundry with
>> useful utilities and documentation helping people find and use quality
>> open fonts on the web. Our advocacy should really be action-based. IMHO
>> focusing the scope will help us move forward. Always harder to be
>> everything to everyone.
>> How about instead:
>> "To catalogue, host and sponsor the creation and availability of quality
>> libre/open fonts (typeface designs software expressions) for the web."
> Do you mean "typeface designs and their software expressions"?
I want to make it clear that that libre/open fonts are the software
expressions of a typeface design. So no "and" but a parenthesis of
explanation. Improved wording welcome. But that's what I strongly feel
needs to be said.
I want to make the software status of fonts clearer:
typeface design = creative concept = idea
fonts = software expression of the design = copyrightable work
We will be accepting and publishing fonts not the "idea" of them, won't
we? Let's make this terminology clear. Otherwise I feel we seriously
risk abusing the trust of uploaders, who may easily be ripped off by
those who believe (and there are an increasing number) that ideas
shouldn't be bound by copyright law only their actual implementations.
Especially as this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This isn't
our goal, right?
We had a thread earlier called "Site terminology: Fonts/Typefaces" where
I made the case after LGM discussions on the subject:
> Ben Weiner | http://readingtype.org.uk/about/contact.html
> +44 (0) 7780 608 659
Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary
More information about the OpenFontLibrary