fonts July 2008

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

20 participants
55 discussions

Fwd: Mukti fontset license
by Michal Nowak 25 Jul '08

25 Jul '08

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Sayamindu Dasgupta" <sayamindu(a)gnu.org.in> To: "b ghose" <b.ghose(a)gnu.org> Cc: "Michal Nowak" <mnowak(a)redhat.com> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:48:40 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna Subject: Re: Mukti fontset license On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Baishampayan Ghose <b.ghose(a)gnu.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Michal Nowak <mnowak(a)redhat.com> wrote: >> ping? >> >> On 10:11 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Fedora Linux distribution considered packaging Your Mukti fontset, >>> but we found out that the license is GPLv2+, which we consider as >>> excellent for software but not for fonts. >>> >>> The problem we see is that when you embed the font inside PDF file >>> then the whole document has to be licensed as a GPLv2+ too. This is >>> thought to be controversial. >>> >>> Do you think it can be possible to change the license to e.g. 'GPLv2+ >>> + Font Exception'? The Exception would be this one: >>> >>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException >>> >>> Which just says that just embedding the font does not mean that you >>> have to license your file (e.g. book) as GPLv2+ too. >>> >>> Let me know whay you think. >>> >>> Looking forward to your reply. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Michal > > Sayamindu, can you kindly contact the author of Mukti and coordinate this? > I have tried to do this earlier - did not get any response from him. Will try again. -sdg- -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] -- Michal Nowak BaseOS QE (Apps/Toolchain sub-group) Engineer

2 1

Re: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts?
by Vasile Gaburici 25 Jul '08

25 Jul '08

[Mumbles: I really whish gmail defaulted to "reply all"] On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As a little addendum, here's a quote from Adobe's Thomas Phinney, a > bit further down that typophile thread: "The professional publishing > market seems to have a strong preference for CFF, even if there is no > technical reality behind that." > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Nicolas Mailhot >> <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote: >>> In practice you can approximate cubic splines by just cutting cubic >>> segments in many quadratic ones, which font editors like fontforge do >>> automatically, and at the sizes text is typically rendered there's no >>> visible difference. >>> >>> But after years of marketing on the subject some users are convinced >>> transformation to quadratic for fonts designed with cubic splines is a >>> quality loss. >> >> Indeed. I was one that believed there would be a difference, but even >> at 512 display size, I don't see a single pixel that differs. >> Screenshots here: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312489 >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312491 >> >> On the other hand, CFF and TFF use different hinting mechanisms, and >> there a visible difference at small (10-12) point sizes, even on >> Windows. >> >> On the TTF vs. CFF issue, Adam Twardoch, one of the FontLab's managers >> (don't let this make you think he's all marketingspeak) has some >> insightful comments here: >> http://www.typophile.com/node/16695#comment-99516. My summary of his >> position is that TrueType in in OpenType packaging should genrally be >> prefered to OpenType/CCF as an end-user delivery method, all other >> features being equal. >> >> Unfortunately, on Fedora we also have a more complex hinting issue: >> Apple has a patent on TrueType hinting, so TT hinting is off by >> default (there's a Livna package to enable it). Also, most free fonts >> like Linux Libertine store the manually produced PostScript hinting in >> their sfd file (I checked with Philipp), and the TT hinting is >> generated in FontForge just before the TTF is exported. So my guess is >> that the CFF hinting is likely to be better, since it's hand-made. I >> need to do a few more test on this though... >> >

2 2

Had a look at Charis SIL
by Vasile Gaburici 25 Jul '08

25 Jul '08

It uses *lots* of multiple (ligature-type) substitutions, sprinkled with some context-based substitutions, and some single substitutions in multiple ccmp tables (some tables are class-based, some glyph based). It's unlike any of the simple stuff that Adobe or other fonts do. I wonder how they maintain all that... Does anyone know if they have their own production tools?

4 6

Re: Bullet-proof method of asking upstream for clarification?
by Nicolas Mailhot 25 Jul '08

25 Jul '08

On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 07:24 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 02:21:56PM +0900, Jared Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 09:20 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > It would be nice if some non-English speakers on this list would look at > > > it. Then post to the list here to tell me if any of the text rubs you > > > the wrong way! :-) > > > > Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a non-English speaker, but > > it might be good to include a link to Fedora's licensing policy, so that > > if nothing else, this can be an educational experience for the person > > receiving an email such as this. > > Your wish is my command -- so added! ;-) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/DraftUpstreamRequestEmail I'm obviously a bad person to comment on, since my messages often go through as "undiplomatic", but can you add a line about adding a detached text license file in the same archive as the font files? Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages
by Nicolas Mailhot 25 Jul '08

25 Jul '08

On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 13:03 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:36:40PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > Frankly, the other font formats are so much less useful than modern font > > formats, the probability someone did creative legal restructuring is > > much lower. Anyway, I've amended the proposal in a less format-oriented version https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_othe… > > The big exception are Type1 fonts but I just hope they can > > die die die (and if the Tex-Gyre situation is fixed and we can use OTF > I don't think this may happen in a while because some very interesting > apps (though not mainstream desktop apps, fortunately) uses type1 > fonts, mostly using t1lib, like xfig, xdvi, grace. Our TEX can use TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType CFF) now. Given that OTF (OpenType CFF) embeds something very close to what PDF uses, I'd be surprised if Ghostscript could not use the OTF TEX-Gyre fonts directly. Do we really have so much interecting stuff that depends on Type1 once TEX and GS are out of the way? > > In the meanwhile, it may make sense to add Type1 to the list. > > For tex I believe that it will be too complicated to use the system > fonts. TEX now uses the same formats as everyone else (TTF and OTF). I frankly do not think we can afford (or have the resources) to duplicate megs of fonts in TEX-specific packages. If TEX can not use the fonts in fontconfig directories, it just has to symlink them somewhere it can. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Re: Increasing point size of Meera font using fontconfig
by Behdad Esfahbod 25 Jul '08

25 Jul '08

Hi again, I tested your snippet and it works perfectly. It's actually a very nice trick that should be documented! I'm CC'ing fedora-fonts-list. Here's the snippet to adjust font size for a family. <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd"> <fontconfig>  <match target="font"> <test name="family" mode="eq"> <string>Meera</string> </test> <edit name="matrix" mode="assign"> <times> <name>matrix</name> <matrix><double>1.2</double><double>0</double> <double>0</double><double>1.2</double> </matrix> </times> </edit> </match> </fontconfig> behdad On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 15:13 +0530, Pravin Satpute wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Behdad, > > ~ I am maintainer of package smc-fonts-meera-04-6.fc9.noarch and i > want to double this fonts point size using fontconfig, i need your help > in this case. > Attaching .conf file i have created for meera font, > ~ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448078 > ~ I don't know how to test that whether it is working right or not, > alternately it will be nice if you help me in correcting this file. > ~ I will be very thankful to you for giving some time from your busy > schedule. > > > Thanks & Regards, > Pravin S > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkiITqgACgkQLTnsA10u83yKdACeMo9+3CRMgp7ccnKYdfJgL2aH > 9UsAnjkRTriDlfgLf7H0rXrzSWnbyn+B > =tW3X > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- behdad http://behdad.org/

3 4

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages
by Nicolas Mailhot 25 Jul '08

25 Jul '08

On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 00:47 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 23:10, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > I'm proposing the following guidelines amendment: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_othe… > > I'm generally in favour, but ... > [...] > 1. any package that makes use of fonts in a modern format like OpenType TT > (TTF) or OpenType CFF (OTF) MUST have them packaged separately > [...] > > ... what about fonts in other formats which happen to be included in a given > package? I don't have any specific examples, just asking. Frankly, the other font formats are so much less useful than modern font formats, the probability someone did creative legal restructuring is much lower. The big exception are Type1 fonts but I just hope they can die die die (and if the Tex-Gyre situation is fixed and we can use OTF Tex-Gyre fonts instead of all ther URW font variants we currently ship I'll propose Type1 purging from the repository). In the meanwhile, it may make sense to add Type1 to the list. For other formats, the sad truth is no one so far has volunteered writing doc on how they should be packaged, so I'm afraid no one knows how to review them. -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Re: A PackageKit browser plugin
by Nicolas Mailhot 25 Jul '08

25 Jul '08

On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 05:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Jeff Spaleta (jspaleta(a)gmail.com) said: > >> it? I would strongly suggest working towards replacing the current > >> interface that both contributors and users are expected to interact > >> with. If I'm going to be expected to use the existing > >> interface...while users are expected to use a new and completely > >> different interface...we've widened the communication gap..even with > >> email notifications turned on. > > > > Does anyone actually use packagedb to browse for available software? > > I have, at times. The fonts SIG maintains this wiki section http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts It would be mighty nice if we could just point to some semi-automated website instead. The problems as I see them are 1. we need info about not existing wishlist/in-review/rejected packages 2. we need some info not in pkgdb (style and unicode coverage, ideally autogenerated font png previews) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
by Nicolas Mailhot 25 Jul '08

25 Jul '08

Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:37, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit : > > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 16:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> I wonder what fedora-legal has to say on the subject > > On what subject exactly? I'm missing all of the context here. Is it OK if for the gust project to relicense GPL fonts under the GUST (LPPL) license ? We need an OpenType conversion of the ghostscript fonts so we can forget about Type1. Those Polish TEX guys did one that looks good, but publish the result under another (acceptable for us) license. You see this concern on page 8 of http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf -- Nicolas Mailhot

3 8

Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages
by Nicolas Mailhot 25 Jul '08

25 Jul '08

Hi, Given what happened there: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456580 I'm proposing the following guidelines amendment: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_othe… Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts July 2008