[OpenFontLibrary] Contribute logos for permissive font licenses on OFLBv2

[Robert Martinez]

Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:
> Nothing else on the site uses colors to distinguish things. It would 
> make these elements stand out dramatically.
>
> I don't see why tooltips or a mouseover div wouldn't solve this issue 
> without bulking up the icon.
>
> -J
>
> On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:30 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>> So do we have consensus on these icons with the full acronym as text 
>> next to it?
>>
>> Only query I have remaining is if we keep all 3 as black or have 
>> different colors?
>>
>>
>>     On 31 Jul 2009, 10:26 AM, "Nicolas Spalinger"
>>     <nicolas_spalinger at sil.org <mailto:nicolas_spalinger at sil.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dave Crossland wrote: > Full acronyms as text next to the icon is
>>     good, but again, I think > you're ...
>>
>>     I see your point and you can probably understand where I'm coming
>>     from
>>     on this but licensing clarity is really a major feature of the whole
>>     library.
>>
>>     This might be a small illustration, and we already have full
>>     reports on
>>     the page of the font itself but seeing as clearly as possible what
>>     rights are granted or reserved right there in the list of fonts
>>     is also
>>     needed.
>>
>>     We care about good licensing and about not hiding it to
>>     users/contributors of the site, it's part of what makes this service
>>     stand out compared to existing font portals. Especially as the
>>     webfonts
>>     debate matures and recognizes the value of showing the right
>>     metadata to
>>     users...
>>
>>     There are at least 4 well-known and widely used licenses starting
>>     with G...
>>
>>     -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer Debian/Ubuntu font teams /
>>     OpenFontLibrary
>>
>>     http://planet.open-fonts.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> Joshua Newman Design <http://joshuanewmandesign.com/>
> 401.225.7222
>
I second that. The icons should be kept reserved and clear - no need for 
extra emphasis.
Putting the "formal" aspect of how to integrate the icons aside, I want 
to focus on something else:

Should the icons only purpose be "indicating a licence"?
Or do we want to show the real-life effects that licence has?

Because if we offer "really free" fonts in the first place - what's the 
difference between those licencs?
Obviously there MUST be a difference if we choose to add icons - but 
what exactly is that!?

... I think that's a challange we should face in order to answer the 
questions that will arise.

If someone could distill the  key differences, maybe we could try to 
present THEM instead of the current licence/acronym icons. Because not 
every visitor will read all the licences, understand them, find the 
differences and be happy with our "tags". Most people will probably get 
scared, thinking that they finally know what the difference of "free and 
gratis" means, we suddenly show them 3 kinds of "free".

CC does a great job with their icons and descriptions.

but maybe half of my post is irrelevant, since not even I really know 
the exact differences of those licences.


Robert