<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Liam R E Quin wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:1243697735.6095.10.camel@desktop.barefootcomputing.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 11:30 -0300, minombresbond wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">+1 "libre fonts" </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> </blockquote> +1 for 'libre fonts' too. 'Open' brings me the memory of the free software/open source ideological schism (maybe it's also because that's how i always saw the terms). O 'Free' does have the 'as in beer'/'as in speech' ambiguity, as well as 'free font websites' being the term generally used by professional typographers to decry the quality of no-cost fonts on the web... ...and the 'free' term might also get some spyware detectors crazy, according to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/090529-073506">http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/090529-073506</a> ;p <blockquote cite="mid:1243697735.6095.10.camel@desktop.barefootcomputing.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Maybe the thing to do is to focus on the difference... You can redistribute "libre" fonts (usually only under a compatible licence); you can use them on the Web; you can print with them; you can change them; you can redistribute changed versions; anyone can get the source for your changes. So, one could say "usable fonts", perhaps. </pre> </blockquote> this would be a really interesting take in the debacle, as in proprietary fonts being 'unusable'. I love this idea! </body> </html>