You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de> on 2011/11/14 15:18:13 UTC
Font related questions
Hi,
In the process of removing the liberation fonts (they are under GPL
license, issue 118600) I stumbled upon some font related questions.
Maybe someone on this list can provide answers.
1. The gentium basic fonts are under the SIL Open Font License. This
looks OK to me but I am not a lawyer. Is this a category A, B or X license?
2. The license of the open symbol font is unclear, it only has a
copyright notice (to Oracle). Issue 89686 complains about this. There
are comments about the intention of putting it under LGPL. But the last
comment of the issue is more than three years old and its status is
STARTED. Does anybody know more about this?
Additional information:
- External fonts are contained in archives in ext-sources:
Gentium Basic Fonts:
35efabc239af896dfb79be7ebdd6e6b9-gentiumbasic-fonts-1.10.zip
Liberation Fonts:
ca4870d899fd7e943ffc310a5421ad4d-liberation-fonts-ttf-1.06.0.20100721.tar.gz
They are processed in the more_fonts module.
- The Symbol Font can be found in extras/source/truetype/opens___.ttf
Regards,
Andre
Re: Font related questions
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/14/2011 03:35 PM, schrieb Simon Phipps:
>
> On 14 Nov 2011, at 06:33, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>> Hi Andre;
>>
>> --- On Mon, 11/14/11, Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In the process of removing the liberation fonts (they are
>>> under GPL license, issue 118600) I stumbled upon some font
>>> related questions. Maybe someone on this list can provide
>>> answers.
>>>
>>> 1. The gentium basic fonts are under the SIL Open Font
>>> License. This looks OK to me but I am not a
>>> lawyer. Is this a category A, B or X license?
>>>
>>
>> It is inspired on the GPL but it is conceived for fonts.
>> It think we could treat it as weak copyleft. I guess
>> we should ask legal but in any case it would be better
>> to just use the system fonts.
>
> Having at least one common set of fonts across all platforms is an important goal, if we can achieve it.
>
> S.
+1
A great advantage of OOo is the common Look & Feel, not only between the
OOo applications but also on all platforms. And a set of fonts (+ icons)
has helped to build this advantage.
Marcus
Re: Font related questions
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 14 Nov 2011, at 06:33, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Andre;
>
> --- On Mon, 11/14/11, Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the process of removing the liberation fonts (they are
>> under GPL license, issue 118600) I stumbled upon some font
>> related questions. Maybe someone on this list can provide
>> answers.
>>
>> 1. The gentium basic fonts are under the SIL Open Font
>> License. This looks OK to me but I am not a
>> lawyer. Is this a category A, B or X license?
>>
>
> It is inspired on the GPL but it is conceived for fonts.
> It think we could treat it as weak copyleft. I guess
> we should ask legal but in any case it would be better
> to just use the system fonts.
Having at least one common set of fonts across all platforms is an important goal, if we can achieve it.
S.
RE: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1
So long as NOTICE-source is in the SVN and part of the source distribution at
an appropriate level, I think the simple NOTICE[.txt] name is good enough.
But either way the scripting trick is perfect and NOTICE-binary is a great
differentiator.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:54
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I would add
>
> 3) What makes it easy for an adopter of a binary release to know what
> license
> permissions and license conditions and restrictions apply to their use of
> the
> artifact.
>
> I agree about the confusion downstream. It also matters how diligent
> downstream producers are in handling of their own dependencies.
>
Exactly. A diligent downstream consumer will want to make sure their
own notice file is in order, and that presumes our is as well.
Maybe we just have two source files in our SVN:
NOTICE-source and NOTICE-binary
And then have the build script rename the source version when creating
the source tarballs. And concatenate them for the binary release?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:38
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Two considerations:
>
> 1) What is required for Apache notice policy
>
> and
>
> 2) What makes it easier for downstream consumers to comply with
> whatever notice policy they may wish to implement for their releases
>
> Personally I think it is very confusing for downstream consumers if we
> have a notice file filed with notices for modules that are not
> actually included in the release. Not very helpful for them producing
> their own notices.
>
> [ ... ]
>
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I would add
>
> 3) What makes it easy for an adopter of a binary release to know what license
> permissions and license conditions and restrictions apply to their use of the
> artifact.
>
> I agree about the confusion downstream. It also matters how diligent
> downstream producers are in handling of their own dependencies.
>
Exactly. A diligent downstream consumer will want to make sure their
own notice file is in order, and that presumes our is as well.
Maybe we just have two source files in our SVN:
NOTICE-source and NOTICE-binary
And then have the build script rename the source version when creating
the source tarballs. And concatenate them for the binary release?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:38
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Two considerations:
>
> 1) What is required for Apache notice policy
>
> and
>
> 2) What makes it easier for downstream consumers to comply with
> whatever notice policy they may wish to implement for their releases
>
> Personally I think it is very confusing for downstream consumers if we
> have a notice file filed with notices for modules that are not
> actually included in the release. Not very helpful for them producing
> their own notices.
>
> [ ... ]
>
RE: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Rob,
I would add
3) What makes it easy for an adopter of a binary release to know what license
permissions and license conditions and restrictions apply to their use of the
artifact.
I agree about the confusion downstream. It also matters how diligent
downstream producers are in handling of their own dependencies.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:38
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
[ ... ]
Two considerations:
1) What is required for Apache notice policy
and
2) What makes it easier for downstream consumers to comply with
whatever notice policy they may wish to implement for their releases
Personally I think it is very confusing for downstream consumers if we
have a notice file filed with notices for modules that are not
actually included in the release. Not very helpful for them producing
their own notices.
[ ... ]
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> It might work to have a single NOTICE version, as some of the Sun/Oracle
> distributions seemed to do in their THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME files.
>
> E.g.,
>
> The following software may be included in this product: Bitstram
> Vera Fonts; Use of any of this software is governed by the terms
> of the license below:
>
> Bitstream, Inc.
>
> Bitstream Vera Fonts
>
> [ ... ]
>
> The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
> but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be
> sold by itself.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> The following software may be included in this product: MS Runtime
> Libraries; Use of any of this software is governed by the terms of
> the license below:
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> Runtime Libraries
>
> [ ... ]
>
> I have no sense of whether that fits inside the Apache comfort zone for the
> source-code release or it should be an expanded NOTICE that the build process
> includes. The ones that are installed with the binary Sun/Oracle
> distributions have that nice "may be included" (so long as not taken as
> permission). This seems rather specific to the binary distribution.
>
Two considerations:
1) What is required for Apache notice policy
and
2) What makes it easier for downstream consumers to comply with
whatever notice policy they may wish to implement for their releases
Personally I think it is very confusing for downstream consumers if we
have a notice file filed with notices for modules that are not
actually included in the release. Not very helpful for them producing
their own notices.
> I'm thinking that, in my own work, I will split them. The build script can
> put the binary one together from the source one and a supplement that covers
> build/platform-dependent run-time dependencies.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:06
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA burden concerning
>> licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
>>
>> With regard to the NOTICE file. In a binary release, yes. If the work is
>> being embedded somehow and/or installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is
>> included in the executable install location should include it. This applies
>> to third-party category A also. Dependencies on the licenses of other are
>> always acknowledged.
>>
>
> So do we need two versions, one for source releases and another for
> the binary release?
>
> -Rob
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:36
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
>> the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
>> by legal.
>>
>> While here a general question: do we have to mention
>> "Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
>> I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
>> source code for that in in the SVN server or in
>> the releases, we will just use the binaries if
>> they are available.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>
RE: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Rob,
It might work to have a single NOTICE version, as some of the Sun/Oracle
distributions seemed to do in their THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME files.
E.g.,
The following software may be included in this product: Bitstram
Vera Fonts; Use of any of this software is governed by the terms
of the license below:
Bitstream, Inc.
Bitstream Vera Fonts
[ ... ]
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be
sold by itself.
[ ... ]
The following software may be included in this product: MS Runtime
Libraries; Use of any of this software is governed by the terms of
the license below:
Microsoft Corporation
Runtime Libraries
[ ... ]
I have no sense of whether that fits inside the Apache comfort zone for the
source-code release or it should be an expanded NOTICE that the build process
includes. The ones that are installed with the binary Sun/Oracle
distributions have that nice "may be included" (so long as not taken as
permission). This seems rather specific to the binary distribution.
I'm thinking that, in my own work, I will split them. The build script can
put the binary one together from the source one and a supplement that covers
build/platform-dependent run-time dependencies.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:06
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA burden concerning
> licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
>
> With regard to the NOTICE file. In a binary release, yes. If the work is
> being embedded somehow and/or installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is
> included in the executable install location should include it. This applies
> to third-party category A also. Dependencies on the licenses of other are
> always acknowledged.
>
So do we need two versions, one for source releases and another for
the binary release?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:36
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
> [ ... ]
>
> But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
> the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
> by legal.
>
> While here a general question: do we have to mention
> "Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
> I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
> source code for that in in the SVN server or in
> the releases, we will just use the binaries if
> they are available.
>
> Pedro.
>
> Pedro.
>
>
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- On Fri, 11/18/11, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM,
> Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org>
> wrote:
> > I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA
> burden concerning licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
>
:).
>
> > With regard to the NOTICE file. In a binary release,
> yes. If the work is being embedded somehow and/or
> installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is included in the
> executable install location should include it. This
> applies to third-party category A also. Dependencies on
> the licenses of other are always acknowledged.
> >
>
> So do we need two versions, one for source releases and
> another for the binary release?
>
No. Category A applies to both and it doesn't hurt to
mention Category B for source releases too.
I think it would be nice to have sections in the NOTICE
file for both Categories. I can do that.
Pedro.
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA burden concerning licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
>
> With regard to the NOTICE file. In a binary release, yes. If the work is being embedded somehow and/or installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is included in the executable install location should include it. This applies to third-party category A also. Dependencies on the licenses of other are always acknowledged.
>
So do we need two versions, one for source releases and another for
the binary release?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:36
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
>
> [ ... ]
>
> But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
> the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
> by legal.
>
> While here a general question: do we have to mention
> "Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
> I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
> source code for that in in the SVN server or in
> the releases, we will just use the binaries if
> they are available.
>
> Pedro.
>
> Pedro.
>
>
RE: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I welcome anyone who is willing to share the PITA burden concerning licensing, IP, terms-of-use, etc.
With regard to the NOTICE file. In a binary release, yes. If the work is being embedded somehow and/or installed in some manner, the NOTICE that is included in the executable install location should include it. This applies to third-party category A also. Dependencies on the licenses of other are always acknowledged.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:36
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
[ ... ]
But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
by legal.
While here a general question: do we have to mention
"Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
source code for that in in the SVN server or in
the releases, we will just use the binaries if
they are available.
Pedro.
Pedro.
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi;
--- On Fri, 11/18/11, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > Hi;
> >
> > OFL has two big issues:
> > 1) It's copyleft so we cannot put it in the
> repository.
> > 2) It cannot be redistributed on it's own: it has
> > to be bundled with software, so we cannot make it
> > available as and add-on package by itself.
> >
>
> I don't see the problem here. It says, "Neither the
> Font Software nor
> any of its individual components, in Original or Modified
> Versions,
> may be sold by itself." But we're not selling the
> font in any form, bundled or not.
>
Still that is a limitation and I am not sure it fits
within ASF policies. The code produced by the ASF can
be resold and users expect to be able to unbundle and
rebundle as they see fit.
> Why can't we just download it as part of the build
> script? It is not
> in SVN then, and we only include it in the binary release?
>
I think we can do this, yes.
> This looks acceptable per: (1)
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
>
> > The bitstream vera / dejavu fonts are not without
> issues:
> > " ... no copy of one or more of the Font Software
> typefaces
> > may be sold by itself."
> >
>
> Again, we are not selling it "by itself".
>
I think the "no-sell" clause contradicts the
"Software License Criteria".
But I am not in the business of being a PITA for
the project, I just think this has to be reviewed
by legal.
While here a general question: do we have to mention
"Category-B" software in the NOTICE file?
I say we shouldn't since we are not including any
source code for that in in the SVN server or in
the releases, we will just use the binaries if
they are available.
Pedro.
Pedro.
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi;
>
> OFL has two big issues:
> 1) It's copyleft so we cannot put it in the repository.
> 2) It cannot be redistributed on it's own: it has
> to be bundled with software, so we cannot make it
> available as and add-on package by itself.
>
I don't see the problem here. It says, "Neither the Font Software nor
any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions,
may be sold by itself." But we're not selling the font in any form,
bundled or not.
Why can't we just download it as part of the build script? It is not
in SVN then, and we only include it in the binary release?
This looks acceptable per:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
> The bitstream vera / dejavu fonts are not without issues:
> " ... no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces
> may be sold by itself."
>
Again, we are not selling it "by itself".
> I have no opinion on how to manage this: it must be reviewed
> by a lawyer, so yes, this absolutely has to be taken to legal.
>
> regards,
>
> Pedro.
>
> --- On Fri, 11/18/11, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Herbert Duerr wrote:
>> > On 18.11.2011 06:16, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> >>
>> >> JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
>> >> https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
>> >
>> > This shows the need that fonts need to be available
>> for bundling with Apache
>> > projects. In my opinion also the popular "Open Font
>> License"
>> > is suitable for that as its conditions fulfill the
>> requirements of a
>> > category-A license.
>> >
>> > What is the process for having the OFL (Open Font
>> License)
>> > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web
>> > be recognized as a category-A license?
>> >
>>
>> Start a discussion on the legal-discuss@ mailing list,
>> asking for Open
>> Font License to be categorized.
>>
>> > Which fonts can be bundled by an Apache project is not
>> only an interesting
>> > topic for productivity apps targeting end users. It is
>> also coming into
>> > focus for servers with the
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Open_Font_Format
>> >
>>
>> Some of the font licenses do not allow modification.
>> So they are not
>> really OSS licenses. But there seems to be permission
>> to use some of
>> these similar to how we treat category-b code. See:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
>>
>>
>> > Herbert
>> >
>>
>
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi;
OFL has two big issues:
1) It's copyleft so we cannot put it in the repository.
2) It cannot be redistributed on it's own: it has
to be bundled with software, so we cannot make it
available as and add-on package by itself.
The bitstream vera / dejavu fonts are not without issues:
" ... no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces
may be sold by itself."
I have no opinion on how to manage this: it must be reviewed
by a lawyer, so yes, this absolutely has to be taken to legal.
regards,
Pedro.
--- On Fri, 11/18/11, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Herbert Duerr wrote:
> > On 18.11.2011 06:16, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >>
> >> JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
> >> https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
> >
> > This shows the need that fonts need to be available
> for bundling with Apache
> > projects. In my opinion also the popular "Open Font
> License"
> > is suitable for that as its conditions fulfill the
> requirements of a
> > category-A license.
> >
> > What is the process for having the OFL (Open Font
> License)
> > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web
> > be recognized as a category-A license?
> >
>
> Start a discussion on the legal-discuss@ mailing list,
> asking for Open
> Font License to be categorized.
>
> > Which fonts can be bundled by an Apache project is not
> only an interesting
> > topic for productivity apps targeting end users. It is
> also coming into
> > focus for servers with the
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Open_Font_Format
> >
>
> Some of the font licenses do not allow modification.
> So they are not
> really OSS licenses. But there seems to be permission
> to use some of
> these similar to how we treat category-b code. See:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
>
>
> > Herbert
> >
>
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 18.11.2011 06:16, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>> JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
>> https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
>
> This shows the need that fonts need to be available for bundling with Apache
> projects. In my opinion also the popular "Open Font License"
> is suitable for that as its conditions fulfill the requirements of a
> category-A license.
>
> What is the process for having the OFL (Open Font License)
> http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web
> be recognized as a category-A license?
>
Start a discussion on the legal-discuss@ mailing list, asking for Open
Font License to be categorized.
> Which fonts can be bundled by an Apache project is not only an interesting
> topic for productivity apps targeting end users. It is also coming into
> focus for servers with the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Open_Font_Format
>
Some of the font licenses do not allow modification. So they are not
really OSS licenses. But there seems to be permission to use some of
these similar to how we treat category-b code. See:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
> Herbert
>
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 18.11.2011 06:16, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
> https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
This shows the need that fonts need to be available for bundling with
Apache projects. In my opinion also the popular "Open Font License"
is suitable for that as its conditions fulfill the requirements of a
category-A license.
What is the process for having the OFL (Open Font License)
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web
be recognized as a category-A license?
Which fonts can be bundled by an Apache project is not only an
interesting topic for productivity apps targeting end users. It is also
coming into focus for servers with the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Open_Font_Format
Herbert
Re: Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Actually ...
These Droid fonts dont look suitable for a desktop.
They lack many features, for example, there are no
italics :(.
Pedro.
--- On Fri, 11/18/11, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi;
>
> JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
> https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
>
> BTW, there is a minor update available for the dejavu
> fonts:
> http://dejavu-fonts.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> Pedro.
>
Apache Licensed Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi;
JFYI, Google released some AL2 fonts for Android:
https://github.com/android/platform_frameworks_base/tree/master/data/fonts
BTW, there is a minor update available for the dejavu fonts:
http://dejavu-fonts.org/wiki/Main_Page
Pedro.
Re: Font related questions
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 14.11.2011 16:45, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
> --- On Mon, 11/14/11, Herbert Duerr<hd...@alice.de> wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> I think he fixed the metric files to better work with
>> the Arial Narrow
>>> font.
>>
>> I extended the Liberation Sans font family with Narrow font
>> faces and contributed these changes upstream.
>>
>>> But still, he will be sad, that they have to go.
>>
>> Not only me, but everyone who is using documents with it or
>> its metrically compatible counterpart. These documents or
>> their text boxes tend to overflow and this often looks
>> nasty.
>
> I might've got it wrong, but I understand "liberation"
> fonts are actually replacements for fonts that are already
> installed on Windows. MS-Windows users don't need them
The narrow font faces are not installed with the plain system, they get
usually installed with certain productivity suites.
> and linux/BSD users have them preinstalled.
Yes, we can add them as a dependency or a recommendation.
>> Maybe I should look into basing some new Narrow font faces
>> on a font family that has a license acceptable for bundling
>> them as binaries in an Apache release (e.g. OFL?)
>
> Unfortunately really good fonts are all commercial.
For finding a good looking sans serif font that is usable as a base for
a metrically compatible set of narrow faces there are a couple of good
candidates. E.g. the DejaVu fonts were considered once and IIRC the
metrically compatible narrow font faces based on them looked quite nice.
Herbert
RE: Replacement for Liberation Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
For resiliency testing of the font-embedding provisions in ODF, I am going to use the M+ font faces which are under a BSD-equivalent license.
M+ appears to have characters for enough Unicode points for useful testing. This is not enough variety of font styles for a default set, though. There are Asian code points and others though.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 12:20
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; pfg@apache.org
Subject: Re: Replacement for Liberation Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi;
>
> Looking around the net it looks like Google is not happy
> about GPLd fonts either so they now have a replacement
> to the so-called Liberation fonts:
>
> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/download-and-use-the-new-chrome-os-fonts-in-ubuntu/
>
> http://gsdview.appspot.com/chromeos-localmirror/distfiles/croscorefonts-1.21.0.tar.gz
>
> Apparently they are improved versions of the Liberation
> fonts, which Redhat what licensed from the same designers.
>
> Unlike the droid fonts, these are actually under SIL's
> OFL, which is -I think- weak copyleft, so we should be
> able to include them as binaries in the release.
>
There is an open JIRA issue with legal-discuss on the OFL license.
Not resolved yet.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-112
> best regards,
>
> Pedro.
>
Re: Replacement for Liberation Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi;
>
> Looking around the net it looks like Google is not happy
> about GPLd fonts either so they now have a replacement
> to the so-called Liberation fonts:
>
> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/download-and-use-the-new-chrome-os-fonts-in-ubuntu/
>
> http://gsdview.appspot.com/chromeos-localmirror/distfiles/croscorefonts-1.21.0.tar.gz
>
> Apparently they are improved versions of the Liberation
> fonts, which Redhat what licensed from the same designers.
>
> Unlike the droid fonts, these are actually under SIL's
> OFL, which is -I think- weak copyleft, so we should be
> able to include them as binaries in the release.
>
There is an open JIRA issue with legal-discuss on the OFL license.
Not resolved yet.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-112
> best regards,
>
> Pedro.
>
Re: Replacement for Liberation Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Ven 30/12/11, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org> ha scritto:
> Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > Apparently they are improved versions of the
> Liberation
> > fonts, which Redhat had licensed from the same
> designers.
>
> The key feature of Liberation fonts is that they are
> metrically equivalent to the corresponding Microsoft core
> fonts: i.e., any given glyph (character) in Liberation Sans
> size 12 has exactly the same width, height and spacing that
> it has when rendered in Arial size 12, even though the font
> design is different.
>
> This allows to avoid interoperability issues due to the
> different width/height of fonts. If the fonts you propose
> have the same feature, it would definitely be interesting to
> include them in the suite.
>
Yes, they do. Apparently they are the same fonts but
Google improved them.
There is an interesting comment here:
http://designinstruct.com/articles/resources/font-collections/font-collection-10-free-excellent-monospaced-fonts/
"ummm… Cousine and Liberation Mono are exactly the same? Installed both, alternated back and forth between the fonts in FontBook on OS X, and they are exactly the same font."
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Replacement for Liberation Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Apparently they are improved versions of the Liberation
> fonts, which Redhat what licensed from the same designers.
The key feature of Liberation fonts is that they are metrically
equivalent to the corresponding Microsoft core fonts: i.e., any given
glyph (character) in Liberation Sans size 12 has exactly the same width,
height and spacing that it has when rendered in Arial size 12, even
though the font design is different.
This allows to avoid interoperability issues due to the different
width/height of fonts. If the fonts you propose have the same feature,
it would definitely be interesting to include them in the suite.
Regards,
Andrea.
Replacement for Liberation Fonts (was Re: Font related questions)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi;
Looking around the net it looks like Google is not happy
about GPLd fonts either so they now have a replacement
to the so-called Liberation fonts:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/download-and-use-the-new-chrome-os-fonts-in-ubuntu/
http://gsdview.appspot.com/chromeos-localmirror/distfiles/croscorefonts-1.21.0.tar.gz
Apparently they are improved versions of the Liberation
fonts, which Redhat what licensed from the same designers.
Unlike the droid fonts, these are actually under SIL's
OFL, which is -I think- weak copyleft, so we should be
able to include them as binaries in the release.
best regards,
Pedro.
Re: Font related questions
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- On Mon, 11/14/11, Herbert Duerr <hd...@alice.de> wrote:
...
> >
> > I think he fixed the metric files to better work with
> the Arial Narrow
> > font.
>
> I extended the Liberation Sans font family with Narrow font
> faces and contributed these changes upstream.
>
> > But still, he will be sad, that they have to go.
>
> Not only me, but everyone who is using documents with it or
> its metrically compatible counterpart. These documents or
> their text boxes tend to overflow and this often looks
> nasty.
>
I might've got it wrong, but I understand "liberation"
fonts are actually replacements for fonts that are already
installed on Windows. MS-Windows users don't need them and
linux/BSD users have them preinstalled.
> Maybe I should look into basing some new Narrow font faces
> on a font family that has a license acceptable for bundling
> them as binaries in an Apache release (e.g. OFL?)
>
Unfortunately really good fonts are all commercial.
I tend to use the gsfonts package.
These are rather useful for math:
http://www.bluesky.com/help/fonts/techams.html
but I recall the ttf versions of them are also
commercial.
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Font related questions
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@alice.de>.
>> (FWIW, I think hdu@ committed the liberation fonts
>> originally.)
>
> I think he fixed the metric files to better work with the Arial Narrow
> font.
I extended the Liberation Sans font family with Narrow font faces and
contributed these changes upstream.
> But still, he will be sad, that they have to go.
Not only me, but everyone who is using documents with it or its
metrically compatible counterpart. These documents or their text boxes
tend to overflow and this often looks nasty.
Maybe I should look into basing some new Narrow font faces on a font
family that has a license acceptable for bundling them as binaries in an
Apache release (e.g. OFL?)
Herbert
Re: Font related questions
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- On Mon, 11/14/11, Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
...
> >
> > I asked for this to be included in the SGA, so it's
> likely
> > to be there.
>
> Yes, it is in, I just checked. Thank you very much
> for having this included.
>
Actually, a redhat developer pinpointed the fonts to me :).
Pedro.
Re: Font related questions
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
Hi Pedro,
On 14.11.2011 15:33, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Andre;
>
> --- On Mon, 11/14/11, Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the process of removing the liberation fonts (they are
>> under GPL license, issue 118600) I stumbled upon some font
>> related questions. Maybe someone on this list can provide
>> answers.
>>
>> 1. The gentium basic fonts are under the SIL Open Font
>> License. This looks OK to me but I am not a
>> lawyer. Is this a category A, B or X license?
>>
>
> It is inspired on the GPL but it is conceived for fonts.
> It think we could treat it as weak copyleft. I guess
> we should ask legal but in any case it would be better
> to just use the system fonts.
>
>> 2. The license of the open symbol font is unclear, it only
>> has a copyright notice (to Oracle). Issue 89686
>> complains about this. There are comments about the
>> intention of putting it under LGPL. But the last
>> comment of the issue is more than three years old and its
>> status is STARTED. Does anybody know more about this?
>>
>
> I asked for this to be included in the SGA, so it's likely
> to be there.
Yes, it is in, I just checked. Thank you very much for having this
included.
>
>>
>> Additional information:
>>
>
> I was going to remove them but opengrok noticed they are
> referred to here:
>
> /scp2/source/ooo/file_font_ooo.scp
> /officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/VCL.xcu
>
> so my indelicate axe was not fit for the job ;).
Then it looks like that I have to sharpen mine :)
>
> (FWIW, I think hdu@ committed the liberation fonts
> originally.)
I think he fixed the metric files to better work with the Arial Narrow
font. But still, he will be sad, that they have to go.
Regards,
Andre
>
> thanks for looking at it,
>
> Pedro.
Re: Font related questions
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 14.11.2011 15:33, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> I was going to remove them but opengrok noticed they are
> referred to here:
>
> /scp2/source/ooo/file_font_ooo.scp
This means they were installed with the product. If you don't want to
bundle the fonts you have to remove or disable these entries.
> /officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/VCL.xcu
The entries for these fonts only matter here if the fonts are available.
If they are not available their entries would be ignored. So there is
nothing to change in this file.
> (FWIW, I think hdu@ committed the liberation fonts
> originally.)
Yup, I had extended the classic Liberation fonts with Liberation Sans
Narrow, because having a metrically compatible font for the popular
target font was an often requested feature.
Herbert
Re: Font related questions
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Andre;
--- On Mon, 11/14/11, Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the process of removing the liberation fonts (they are
> under GPL license, issue 118600) I stumbled upon some font
> related questions. Maybe someone on this list can provide
> answers.
>
> 1. The gentium basic fonts are under the SIL Open Font
> License. This looks OK to me but I am not a
> lawyer. Is this a category A, B or X license?
>
It is inspired on the GPL but it is conceived for fonts.
It think we could treat it as weak copyleft. I guess
we should ask legal but in any case it would be better
to just use the system fonts.
> 2. The license of the open symbol font is unclear, it only
> has a copyright notice (to Oracle). Issue 89686
> complains about this. There are comments about the
> intention of putting it under LGPL. But the last
> comment of the issue is more than three years old and its
> status is STARTED. Does anybody know more about this?
>
I asked for this to be included in the SGA, so it's likely
to be there.
>
> Additional information:
>
I was going to remove them but opengrok noticed they are
referred to here:
/scp2/source/ooo/file_font_ooo.scp
/officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/VCL.xcu
so my indelicate axe was not fit for the job ;).
(FWIW, I think hdu@ committed the liberation fonts
originally.)
thanks for looking at it,
Pedro.