[OpenFontLibrary] What licenses do we accept?

[Ed Trager]

Hi, Nicolas,

> Hi Ed,
>
> In the project-and-organisation-specific deprecated category we may want
> to add detection for the following licensing models:
> - Utopia

ADDED TO FONTAINE. TESTED USING HEURISTICA FONT FAMILY.

> - Baekmuk

*NOT* ADDED. BAEKMUK FONT FILES DO NOT MENTION THE LICENSE ...

> - GUST

*NOT* ADDED.  Are there any GUST fonts in TTF or OTF format?

> - Hershey

*NOT* ADDED.  Are there any Hershey-license fonts in TTF or OTF format?

> - Lucida

*NOT* ADDED.  Are there any Lucida-license fonts in TTF or OTF format?

> - Stix

ADDED, BUT MARKED AS DEPRECATED SINCE STIX HAS THEORETICALLY MOVED TO OFL ...

> - Wadalab

*NOT* ADDED. Wadalab fonts don't appear to be in TTF or OTF formats ...

> - mplus

ADDED.

> - Mincho

*NOT* ADDED.  A lot of Japanese fonts are "Mincho" -- no clue which
font project or license this refers to?

> I'll provide the patch for MIT.

ADDED. But not yet tested ... need an MIT-licensed font in a TTF or
OTF package ...

WRT the short truncation of the Copyright field in the display
produced by Fontaine: this was done because I was mainly thinking of
displaying Fontaine's output in a summary tabular form on web pages.
Sometimes the copyright field extends for pages and pages.  I didn't
want that.

Feel free to suggest an appropriate length other than my admittedly
very short 70 character length.  What do folks feel would be
appropriate?  Note that internally Fontaine scans the entire copyright
string, regardless of how long it may be.  But it currently only
prints a short snippet in the output report ...

Best - Ed