[Clipart] [Bug 3974] Interface improvements

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

Please do not reply to this email: if you want to comment on the bug, go to    
       
the URL shown below and enter yourcomments there.     
   
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3974          
     




------- Additional Comments From jonadab at bright.net  2005-08-19 06:34 -------
> The font is: Myriad Pro Black Cond
> I said that in one of my posts I thought...

Ah, yes, I'd missed that somehow; I see it now.

> It is an adobe font from their new font pack of opentype fonts that
> is standard in all adobe apps like the newest illustrator,
> photoshop, etc.

Ah.  I don't have any Adobe products except for the Reader, so that
explains why I don't have it on any of my systems.

> but you know, I'm not sure on the legality of the use of that font
> on our site...

IANAL, but from what I have been given to understand:
 * Distributing the font per se is something we can't do unless Adobe
   chooses to allow it, due to copyright law.  This probably includes
   embedding the font (although I'm not sure we use any formats that
   support embedded fonts anyway).
 * But distributing materials (e.g., graphics) that have been rendered
   using it is probably okay.  People think nothing of distributing
   paper documents that have text rendered with a non-redistributable
   font, and AFAIK there's nothing magic, legally, about paper in this
   regard.
   
However...

> hence why we need open fonts!!!

In some ways, it would be nice to use a freely-redistributable font
for most of the text-rendered-as-graphics on the site, because that
would allow anyone to create the graphics -- e.g., if we needed a new
button or a new sidebar section header, anyone could create it, not 
just someone who has invested money in Adobe products.

Of course, that only matters for the logo if we want its font to match other
things on the site.  Whether that's necessary is something we haven't spent much
discussion on yet.  We could leave the logo as it stands and use a different
font (perhaps a seriffed font, for a nice obvious contrast) for the other
things.  I was just going to use the same font as the logo uses because Jonathan
suggested it, and I didn't have any real objection -- not because I thought it
was strictly necessary.

So perhaps here's the question:  is it better to keep the extant logo/banner
with the font it has (which, incidentally, I quite like for that), or is it
better to pick a freely-redistributable font so that it's easier to make other
things (such as buttons and sidebar section headers) match it?          
     
     
--           
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email         
     
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.