[OpenFontLibrary] OpenFontLibrary Digest, Vol 54, Issue 1

[Robert Martinez]

But If I'm not mistaken the clear majority of the openfontlibrary 
project members do advocate the SIL. (am I mistaken here? maybe there 
should be a poll?)

It sounds pretty weird to me (SIL OFL proponent or not) to differentiate 
two projects and their ideologies by its top level domain.

If the consent of the openfontlibrary project is pro SIL OFL, then it 
would seem pretty counter-productive and do more harm than good to 
anybody imho.

Putting the possible ideoligical disparity aside I believe the common 
goal here is similar enough not to work against each other.


Greetings,
Robert Martinez

On 06/10/2010 12:52 AM, Fontfreedom at aol.com wrote:
> >I'm confused.
> >You're pretty clear about what you think of Dave (though I have no idea
> >why you come to that conclusion) - but you're not that clear about the
> >domain:
> >
> >
> > It is currently forwarding to openfontlibrary.org, but that may change.
> > Also. Someone please fire Dave.
> > FontFreedom
> >
> >Is there a planned change from the frame linking to proper forwarding?
> >
> >I see no way how having active .org AND .com domains can be beneficial
> >to the project.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Robert
> >
> >Mr. Martinez:
> The reason for openfontlibrary.com being what it (was) is to encourage 
> font developers to stop using the SIL Open Font License for their 
> fonts. Certain people (such as Dave Crossland) believe strongly in the 
> SIL Open Font License.
> Whatever changes are made to the domain pointing / hosting / etc... 
> They will have to be determined through discourse.
> Mr. Eric Way
> FontBasis
> 1 Market Plaza
> Spear Tower
> Suite 3500
> San Francisco, CA 94105

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/attachments/20100610/8ff4b1c0/attachment.htm>