Opening up of various fonts by google

[Hans de Goede]

Hi all,

I noticed Google has recently launched its google font directory. As part of
this they have negotiated the opening up of various previous not completely
open fonts. Here a list of fonts which we have not yet packaged, and which
are not on the wishlist either:

Cantarell by Dave Crossland (4 variants)
http://abattis.org/cantarell/

Cardo by David Perry
http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/cardo/
This one is interesting in that it is intended for studies of
old (religious) books and thus contains a lot of scripts

Crimson Text by Sebastian Kosch
http://aldusleaf.org/

IM Fell by Igino Marini (10 families)
http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/felltypes
Digitization of various 17th century fonts

Josefin Sans Std Light by Santiago Orozco
http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/josefin/

Lobster by Pablo Impallari
http://www.impallari.com/lobster/
Hand written font with various ligatures for better connecting
of letters.

Molengo by Denis Jacquerye
http://code.google.com/p/molengo-fonts/

Nobile by Vernon Adams (4 variants)
http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/nobile/

OFL Sorts Mill Goudy TT by Barry Schwartz (2 variants)
http://code.google.com/p/sortsmill/downloads/list

Reenie Beanie by James Grieshaber
http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/reeniebeanie/

Tangerine by Toshi Omagari
http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/tangerine/

Vollkorn by Friedrich Althausen (2 variants)
http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/vollkorn/

Regards,

Hans

[Dave Crossland]

Hi,

On 21 May 2010 10:56, Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  I noticed Google has recently launched its google font directory. As part of
>  this they have negotiated the opening up of various previous not completely
>  open fonts. Here a list of fonts which we have not yet packaged, and which
>  are not on the wishlist either:
>
>  Cantarell by Dave Crossland (4 variants)
>  http://abattis.org/cantarell/ 
I will package this for Fedora now. Doing that has been on my TODO
list for about a year, so, now's a good time.

Cheers
Dave

[Martin Sourada]

On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 16:48 +0200, Dave Crossland wrote: 
>  Hi,
>  
>  On 21 May 2010 10:56, Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  > I noticed Google has recently launched its google font directory. As part of
>  > this they have negotiated the opening up of various previous not completely
>  > open fonts. Here a list of fonts which we have not yet packaged, and which
>  > are not on the wishlist either:
>  >
>  > Cantarell by Dave Crossland (4 variants)
>  > http://abattis.org/cantarell/
>  
>  I will package this for Fedora now. Doing that has been on my TODO
>  list for about a year, so, now's a good time.
>   
Looks like a nice and refreshing font for on-screen usage. I'm ooking
forward it being in Fedora. One thing I noticed, but which may be
related to how the @font-face is handled by webkitgtk, is that the
subpixel hinting is totally broken for this font (i.e. the font looks
blurry). Could you CC me (same e-mail from which I sent this) in review
request when you have it ready?

Thanks,
Martin

[Paul Flo Williams]

Hans de Goede wrote:
>  I noticed Google has recently launched its google font directory. As part
>  of this they have negotiated the opening up of various previous not
>  completely open fonts. Here a list of fonts which we have not yet packaged,
>  and which are not on the wishlist either: 
[snipped list]

There seems to have been a flurry of packaging activity on these over the
past week. I am slightly concerned that some of them don't seem to be
following the naming guidelines for font packages.

As an example, OFL Sorts Mill Goudy seems to have been rushed from first
packaging to release in just six days, but there is no foundry name,
although Google seems to be treated as upstream for this and several other
fonts.

Are we going to start using "google" as a foundry name, or take the
original source of these, where possible?

Paul

[Dave Crossland]

On 1 June 2010 12:57, Paul Flo Williams <paul(a)frixxon.co.uk&gt; wrote:
>  Are we going to start using "google" as a foundry name, or
> take the
>  original source of these, where possible? 
Google is the foundry for a couple of em, but most of em have their
own homepages which ought to be treated as upstream IMO

[Nicolas Spalinger]

Paul Flo Williams wrote:
>  Hans de Goede wrote:
> > I noticed Google has recently launched its google font directory. As part
> > of this they have negotiated the opening up of various previous not
> > completely open fonts. Here a list of fonts which we have not yet packaged,
> > and which are not on the wishlist either:
>  
>  [snipped list]
>  
>  There seems to have been a flurry of packaging activity on these over the
>  past week. I am slightly concerned that some of them don't seem to be
>  following the naming guidelines for font packages.
>  
>  As an example, OFL Sorts Mill Goudy seems to have been rushed from first
>  packaging to release in just six days, but there is no foundry name,
>  although Google seems to be treated as upstream for this and several other
>  fonts.
>  
>  Are we going to start using "google" as a foundry name, or take the
>  original source of these, where possible?
>  
>  Paul 

I recommend going to the upstream website for various open fonts
currently in the Google font directory, there are upstream URL links in
the METADATA files.

Also for packaging in Fedora you probably want the full version (with
more extended sources) and not the web-optimized version in the root
folder of the hg repository.

The structure of the upstream hg repository is being reworked and
reorganized with the goals to fix some metadata bugs and unneeded files
who have slipped it and move closer to the recommended ). I recommend
waiting a little bit for that to settle before doing packaging.

Cheers


-- 
Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary
http://planet.open-fonts.org

[Parag Nemade]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Nicolas Spalinger
<nicolas_spalinger(a)sil.org&gt; wrote:
>  Paul Flo Williams wrote:
> > Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> I noticed Google has recently launched its google font directory. As part
> >> of this they have negotiated the opening up of various previous not
> >> completely open fonts. Here a list of fonts which we have not yet packaged,
> >> and which are not on the wishlist either:
> >
> > [snipped list]
> >
> > There seems to have been a flurry of packaging activity on these over the
> > past week. I am slightly concerned that some of them don't seem to be
> > following the naming guidelines for font packages.
> >
> > As an example, OFL Sorts Mill Goudy seems to have been rushed from first
> > packaging to release in just six days, but there is no foundry name,
> > although Google seems to be treated as upstream for this and several other
> > fonts.
> >
> > Are we going to start using "google" as a foundry name, or take the
> > original source of these, where possible?
> >
> > Paul
>
>
>  I recommend going to the upstream website for various open fonts
>  currently in the Google font directory, there are upstream URL links in
>  the METADATA files.
>
>  Also for packaging in Fedora you probably want the full version (with
>  more extended sources) and not the web-optimized version in the root
>  folder of the hg repository.
>
>  The structure of the upstream hg repository is being reworked and
>  reorganized with the goals to fix some metadata bugs and unneeded files
>  who have slipped it and move closer to the recommended ). I recommend
>  waiting a little bit for that to settle before doing packaging.
>
>  Cheers
>
>
>  --
>  Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
>  Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary
>  http://planet.open-fonts.org
>  

Thanks all for your replies. I am willing to fix those packages if
they are needed to be renamed. Please tell me or open new bugzilla and
I will rename them. I do have plan to package remaining fonts but I
think then I will wait for some more time then.

Packages from above list which are now in fedora are
tangerine-fonts
lobster-fonts
josefinsansstd-light-fonts
crimson-text-fonts
molengo-fonts
ofl-sorts-mill-goudy-fonts
cardo-fonts

should foundry name for these be upstream website names? or
googlefontdirectory or just google?

If it should be from upstream then I will choose following names (also
will pull latest fonts from website given as now googlefontdirectory
is changed within week)

tomagiri-tangerine-fonts -> not found any url
typemade-josefinsansstd-light-fonts->http://typemade.mx
aldusleaf-crimson-text-fonts ->http://aldusleaf.org/
moyogo-molengo-fonts ->http://code.google.com/u/moyogo/
crudfactory-ofl-sorts-mill-goudy-fonts->http://home.comcast.net/~crudf...
scholarsfonts-cardo-fonts-> http://scholarsfonts.net/cardofnt.html


Parag.

[Parag Nemade]

Hi,
2010/6/4 Parag N(पराग़) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt;:
>  Hi,
>
>  On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Nicolas Spalinger
>  <nicolas_spalinger(a)sil.org&gt; wrote:
> > Paul Flo Williams wrote:
> >> Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>> I noticed Google has recently launched its google font directory. As part
> >>> of this they have negotiated the opening up of various previous not
> >>> completely open fonts. Here a list of fonts which we have not yet packaged,
> >>> and which are not on the wishlist either:
> >>
> >> [snipped list]
> >>
> >> There seems to have been a flurry of packaging activity on these over the
> >> past week. I am slightly concerned that some of them don't seem to be
> >> following the naming guidelines for font packages.
> >>
> >> As an example, OFL Sorts Mill Goudy seems to have been rushed from first
> >> packaging to release in just six days, but there is no foundry name,
> >> although Google seems to be treated as upstream for this and several other
> >> fonts.
> >>
> >> Are we going to start using "google" as a foundry name, or take the
> >> original source of these, where possible?
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> > I recommend going to the upstream website for various open fonts
> > currently in the Google font directory, there are upstream URL links in
> > the METADATA files.
> >
> > Also for packaging in Fedora you probably want the full version (with
> > more extended sources) and not the web-optimized version in the root
> > folder of the hg repository.
> >
> > The structure of the upstream hg repository is being reworked and
> > reorganized with the goals to fix some metadata bugs and unneeded files
> > who have slipped it and move closer to the recommended ). I recommend
> > waiting a little bit for that to settle before doing packaging.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer
> > Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary
> > http://planet.open-fonts.org
> >
>
>
>  Thanks all for your replies. I am willing to fix those packages if
>  they are needed to be renamed. Please tell me or open new bugzilla and
>  I will rename them. I do have plan to package remaining fonts but I
>  think then I will wait for some more time then.
>
>  Packages from above list which are now in fedora are
>  tangerine-fonts
>  lobster-fonts
>  josefinsansstd-light-fonts
>  crimson-text-fonts
>  molengo-fonts
>  ofl-sorts-mill-goudy-fonts
>  cardo-fonts
>
>  should foundry name for these be upstream website names? or
>  googlefontdirectory or just google?
>
>  If it should be from upstream then I will choose following names (also
>  will pull latest fonts from website given as now googlefontdirectory
>  is changed within week)
>
>  tomagiri-tangerine-fonts -> not found any url
>  typemade-josefinsansstd-light-fonts->http://typemade.mx
>  aldusleaf-crimson-text-fonts ->http://aldusleaf.org/
>  moyogo-molengo-fonts ->http://code.google.com/u/moyogo/
>
> crudfactory-ofl-sorts-mill-goudy-fonts->http://home.comcast.net/~crudf...
>  scholarsfonts-cardo-fonts-> http://scholarsfonts.net/cardofnt.html
>
>
>  Parag.
>  
I have re-packaged all above to follow foundry in font package names
and submitted to package review. Its since a week I am still looking
for reviewers. I request if someone can spare some time from their
busy work schedule and help to review them, I will be thankful to
them.

Parag.

Is IM Fell free?

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Hans de Goede wrote:
>  I noticed Google has recently launched its google font directory. As
> part of
>  this they have negotiated the opening up of various previous not completely
>  open fonts. Here a list of fonts which we have not yet packaged, and which
>  are not on the wishlist either:
>
>  [...]
>
>  IM Fell by Igino Marini (10 families)
>  http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/felltypes
>  Digitization of various 17th century fonts 
Are the IM Fell fonts free software?

When I look at the Google font pages for IM Fell fonts each page says 
that face is licensed under SIL Open Font License, 1.1 which is a free 
software license.

But when I look at the homepage for IM Fell:

    http://iginomarini.com/fell/the-revival-fonts/

I see the following license:

>  LICENSE
>
>  This font is a nearly free font. You can use it freely but:
>
>  1. If you want to use it in publications on any kind of media you
>  have to put in the following quote as a note: «The Fell Types are
>  digitally reproduced by Igino Marini. www.iginomarini.com» and let
>  the designer know where you used it.
>
>  2. You can’t change the font and its contents (including outlines,
>  kerning and other data as well).
>
>  3. You can distribute it freely with license aside but not sell it in
>  any way. Any other different use has to be authorized by the
>  designer. 
Which strikes me as clearly non-free (usage notification in clause 1, 
immutability in clause 2, and prohibition of commercial distribution in 
clause 3 are all non-free).

As best as I can tell the licensing situation is: IM Fell fonts as 
distributed by Google's font directory are free, licensed under SIL Open 
Font License, 1.1.  The same fonts as distributed by Igino Marini are 
not free.

Is this your understanding as well?

Has anyone contacted Igino Marini about this, possibly asking for 
relicensing under SIL Open Font License, 1.1?

I did not notice anything in any of the subcategories of

   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fonts

discussing the IM Fell font family, hence I'm asking here.

Thanks!

Is IM Fell free?

[Denis Jacquerye]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:36 AM, J.B. Nicholson-Owens
<jbn(a)forestfield.org&gt; wrote:
>  Hans de Goede wrote:
> > I noticed Google has recently launched its google font directory. As part of
> > this they have negotiated the opening up of various previous not completely
> > open fonts. Here a list of fonts which we have not yet packaged, and which
> > are not on the wishlist either:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > IM Fell by Igino Marini (10 families)
> > http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/felltypes
> > Digitization of various 17th century fonts
>
>  Are the IM Fell fonts free software?
>  
If you get the file
http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/felltypes/src/...
the fonts contained are tagged with the OFL license.

Is IM Fell free?

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 06/21/2010 05:36 AM, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
>  Hans de Goede wrote:
> > I noticed Google has recently launched its google font directory. As part of
> > this they have negotiated the opening up of various previous not completely
> > open fonts. Here a list of fonts which we have not yet packaged, and which
> > are not on the wishlist either:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > IM Fell by Igino Marini (10 families)
> > http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/felltypes
> > Digitization of various 17th century fonts
>
>  Are the IM Fell fonts free software?
>
>  When I look at the Google font pages for IM Fell fonts each page says
>  that face is licensed under SIL Open Font License, 1.1 which is a free
>  software license.
>
>  But when I look at the homepage for IM Fell:
>
>       http://iginomarini.com/fell/the-revival-fonts/
>
>  I see the following license:
>
> > LICENSE
> >
> > This font is a nearly free font. You can use it freely but:
> >
> > 1. If you want to use it in publications on any kind of media you
> > have to put in the following quote as a note: «The Fell Types are
> > digitally reproduced by Igino Marini. www.iginomarini.com» and let
> > the designer know where you used it.
> >
> > 2. You can’t change the font and its contents (including outlines,
> > kerning and other data as well).
> >
> > 3. You can distribute it freely with license aside but not sell it in
> > any way. Any other different use has to be authorized by the
> > designer.
>
>  Which strikes me as clearly non-free (usage notification in clause 1,
>  immutability in clause 2, and prohibition of commercial distribution in
>  clause 3 are all non-free).
>
>  As best as I can tell the licensing situation is: IM Fell fonts as
>  distributed by Google's font directory are free, licensed under SIL Open
>  Font License, 1.1.  The same fonts as distributed by Igino Marini are
>  not free.
>
>  Is this your understanding as well?
>  
Yes that is correct. I've had contact with google about this to verify. and
in cases where google has only ttf and upstream has for example otf I've asked
google to also make the otf versions available under the OFL if they can.

Regards,

Hans

Is IM Fell free?

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2010 04:36, J.B. Nicholson-Owens <jbn(a)forestfield.org&gt; wrote:
>  But when I look at the homepage for IM Fell:
>
>     http://iginomarini.com/fell/the-revival-fonts/
>
>  I see the following license: 
I guess its just that the homepage is stale, I will email Igino about it :)

Is IM Fell free?

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2010 03:17, Dave Crossland <dave(a)lab6.com&gt; wrote:
>  On 21 June 2010 04:36, J.B. Nicholson-Owens
> <jbn(a)forestfield.org&gt; wrote:
> >
> > But when I look at the homepage for IM Fell:
> >
> >    http://iginomarini.com/fell/the-revival-fonts/
> >
> > I see the following license:
>
>  I guess its just that the homepage is stale, I will email Igino about it :) 
He confirms its now sorted :)

Is IM Fell free?

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Dave Crossland wrote:
>  He confirms its now sorted :) 
Wonderful!  Thanks!