[Openfontlibrary] Font File Type and Admins?

[Raph Levien]

On 10/28/06, Jon Phillips <jon at rejon.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 15:27 -0700, George Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 22:20, Jon Phillips wrote:
> > > Is it hard to get at editing a font from the opentype files?
> > It is trivial.
>
> Ok, then I think we should minimally accept all open type fonts and
> require people to provide these.
>
> Then, at upload, one could upload the full sources for their font in any
> format and if these are not uploaded at the same time, it will encourage
> people on the project to create/reverse engineer sources which will help
> the project and developers/artists. Also, any sources uploaded will have
> to be either put into the public domain or licensed with the Open Font
> License.
>
> I think this is the best approach for keeping the barriers for entry
> into the project as low as possible, but also encourage artists and
> others, while also requiring at least the minimal conversion of an older
> formatted typeface to the newer, Open Type spec.
>
> (Yes, we should support all forms of open type)
>
> What do you all think? I think this is the best way forward.

I'm in favor.

Not to keep the license discussion going longer than it should, but
I'd like to know whether the primary goal of the Open Font Library is
to be a repository and distribution site for _all_ free (libre) fonts,
or whether it is intended as a community site primarily for new font
development. If the former, then accommodating other licenses like GPL
(for the URW and derivative fonts) and the Vera license are important.
If the latter, though, then I don't see any compelling reason to
support any licenses other than the Open Font License.

The biggest problem, I think, with the CC licenses for fonts is
whether they force a CC license for documents they're embedded within.
For mainstream things like samplling snippets of music, or using a
song for a soundtrack, I think the answer is a clear yes: the derived
work has to be licensed under terms compatible with the original CC
license. In _practice,_ for the URW fonts we facilitated releasing
under GPL, we do not force the document incorporating the font to be
GPL'ed. Among other things, such a requirement wouldn't make much
sense, because the GPL is only for code. But the CC licenses _are_
quite sensible to apply to many documents. However, I don't think the
right to embed the GPL fonts is clearly spelled out anywhere.

I am glad to hear, btw, that most Linux distros are able to include CC
content. That seems most consistent with the spirit of both CC and
Linux, and if Debian wants to isolate themselves into an island of
strict license purity, they're welcome to do so. Further, if people
want to release fonts under, say, CC noncommercial, so that any
commercial use of the fonts would have to be paid for, that's fine
with me, but doesn't seem to me to quite qualify as "free." I'm also
not sure how clear the legal status would be.

As far as I know, public domain _does_ exist in the US, but a public
domain font can also be considered an invitation to relicense under,
say, the OFL. &smiley;

Incidentally, I've updated my free fonts page somewhat, including the
first draft release of Typo Script.

http://levien.com/type/myfonts/ofl.html

Raph