<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2> <DIV> <DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>>    I think requiring the font exception would be ideal - ie, removing the<BR>>    2nd category above.<BR>><BR>>FWIW, I don't agree.  I liked your earlier conception much better: if<BR>>it's under a free software license, it can be in OFLB.  For one thing,<BR>>it makes for a much simpler decision process than "we accept free<BR>>licenses a, b, c, but not d, e, and f".  What basis is there to exclude<BR>>some?<BR>><BR>>It is possible a font designer would *choose* to license under GPL<BR>>without font exception.  Not that I know of any actual examples, it's<BR>>always just been ignorance, but it's conceivable.<BR>><BR>>   the largest collection I know of are the URW fonts that are<BR>>   distributed as part of Ghostscript, which predate the "font<BR>>   exception."<BR>><BR>>A form of the GPL font exception appears in the PFB's of most of the URW<BR>>font packages I have seen, although whether it was legally added, I<BR>>don't know.  Aladdin and URW don't answer on these topics, in my<BR>>experience :(.</FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Adding a font embedding exception to any license does make it (the license) non-canonical to start with.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2ndly...is it really needed? An open source license by itself should be enough to embed fonts in documents.</DIV> <DIV>Each license needs to be evaluated to see if it really needs a font embedding exception.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3rd...IF for whatever reason someone wanted this, it would be possible to use an open source license for a font, but NOT allow embedding. (That would have to be in a hypothetical derivative / add on license & in the font's metadata settings.) It's actually probably more likely an open source font author made some mistake in including a no embedding option in the font metadata, at least in the case of an open source font with a no embedding option engaged.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ghostscript also includes the Hershey Fonts, a set of public domain fonts...</DIV> <DIV>I've wondered if there are modern versions of the Hershey Fonts avalible, ie .ttf & .otf.</DIV> <DIV>The Hershey fonts are a standout among public domain fonts insofar as they are not dedicated to the public domain, instead they were created by the U.S. Federal Government. (whose works are public domain)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A common distribution of the Hershey fonts includes this statement:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>USE RESTRICTION:<BR>        This distribution of the Hershey Fonts may be used by anyone for<BR>        any purpose, commercial or otherwise, providing that:<BR>                1. The following acknowledgements must be distributed with<BR>                        the font data:<BR>                        - The Hershey Fonts were originally created by Dr.<BR>                                A. V. Hershey while working at the U. S.<BR>                                National Bureau of Standards.<BR>                        - The format of the Font data in this distribution<BR>                                was originally created by<BR>                                        James Hurt<BR>                                        Cognition, Inc.<BR>                                        900 Technology Park Drive<BR>                                        Billerica, MA 01821<BR>                                        (mit-eddie!ci-dandelion!hurt)<BR>                2. The font data in this distribution may be converted into<BR>                        any other format *EXCEPT* the format distributed by<BR>                        the U.S. NTIS (which organization holds the rights<BR>                        to the distribution and use of the font data in that<BR>                        particular format). Not that anybody would really<BR>                        *want* to use their format... each point is described<BR>                        in eight bytes as "xxx yyy:", where xxx and yyy are<BR>                        the coordinate values as ASCII numbers.<BR>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^</DIV> <DIV>I wonder if NTIS's format provides more accuracy than James Hurt's format.</DIV> <DIV>I also wonder about the accuracy of _2. The font data..._ Seems very dubious.</DIV> <DIV>If all he did was convert NTIS's data, nobody would have to follow these usage restrictions at all, #1 or #2.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV CLASS="aol_ad_footer" ID="c7412ee46f6a0702d6be0faf04f56db"><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. <a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001 ">Search Now</a>.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>