On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:30:35AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> As for trademarks vs RFNs, I suppose trademark (as applied to fonts)
> is just a more official legalized version of RFN. Effectively both TMs
> and RFNs say "you can't use this name for anything other than what I'm
> distributing to you unless you have my permission". I suppose the
> Firefox/Iceweasel thing would be a appropriate precedent in this.
There is a subtle difference here. SIL OFL says:
No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the
corresponding Copyright Holder.
I read this as meaning that if a Modified Version uses the RFN, the
person exercising the copyright permissions granted by the SIL OFL
loses their copyright license.
Whereas without the RFN designation, the font licensor may still have
trademark ownership of the font name, and some modifications might
infringe the trademark. But that's true of software names too. Anyway,
free software licenses do fine without RFN-style clauses (I can only
think of a few, rarely used licenses that have something like them).
> Anyhow, all this is general stuff. As for the Lohit fonts (to which I
> have also contributed my mite in Tamil and Devanagari) I have no
> objections to removing the RFN if the project maintainers and other
> contributors feel like it, but I think that one should not replace the
> RFN with a trademark notice as then the removal of the RFN would be
As previously noted I do not agree that removal of RFN is made
meaningless merely by inclusion of a trademark notice.
With the recent discussions on Fedora fonts list, we have decided to
drop RFN from Lohit fonts. I have done changes in master branch. Bug
related for Dropping RFN is at https://fedorahosted.org/lohit/ticket/8
1. Dropped RFN line from OFL.txt
2. Added Trademark line in COPYRIGHT file
Will do release in next couple of days. Let me know if anyone has any
suggestion in this regards.
Le Mer 12 décembre 2012 17:40, Miroslav Suchý a écrit :
> I would like to package Liberation and OverPass web-fonts.
> We have those fonts in Fedora, but only as normal fonts, not as webfonts:
> I did not seen any webfonts in Fedora yet (and neither in Debian). What
> should be best place for those webfonts?
Whatever for? webfonts have only been created as a form of light drm to
induce proprietary foundries to publish their fonts (the weirdest parts of
the OFL stem from the same objective). They are 100 % needless for free
and open fonts. Woff does add you some additional compression, but if
you're not using mod_deflate or similar in your web server nowadays you're
doing it wrong (and mod_deflate will help with the rest of the web page).
Don't let the zippy name induce you to cargo-cult and package the same
thing in countless formats that will all require new package maintenance.
We can't change history now, but I sometimes wonder if bending backyards
with webfonts and ofl was really necessary, or if a clean free/open font
license (with no weird warts) + the pressure of Firefox/Webkit supporting
direct OTF/TTF linking, would not have achieved the same objectives with
fewer dubious leftovers. (but kuddos for SIL and Mozilla, and every one
else involved, for achieving as much and as fast anyway).
Quoting your wikipedia page :
> Linking to industry-standard TrueType (TTF) and OpenType (TTF/OTF) fonts
> is supported by Mozilla Firefox 3.5+, Opera 10+, Safari 3.1+,
> Google Chrome 4.0+. Internet Explorer 9+ will support only those
> fonts with embedding permissions set to installable.
(the ie part is new, MS used to swear it would never support TTF/OTF
linking, but they had to align themselves with the market anyway, in a few
years there won't be left any important browser on the market without
I'm pretty certain support for most webfont formats will be quietly
dropped before the end of the decade since they don't add much except for
additional smart font code that increases the browser attack surface.
In response to a well-articulated request by a developer, Red Hat is
hereby dual-licensing Overpass Fonts under the SIL Open Font
License 1.1 (heretofore the license of the fonts) and the Apache
License 2.0. This shall serve as a general public announcement.
On 7 December 2012 18:00, Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > No worries. Simply yum update will revert this change. :)
> > Building liberation 1.07.2-11 with epoch for F18
> Perfect, thanks Pravin. It's good to switch to a new technology, but just
> when it is really ready, not sooner. I'm very glad about the decision that
> was made.
This is not matter of readiness of technology. Liberation 2.0 is definitely
ready. If you see the coverage of Liberation 2.0 it is 4 times to
- *Latest Version - Older Version*
- 2302 (sans) - 667
- 2274 (mono) - 666
- 2303 (serif) - 662
1. We have reverted this only because problem of *backward
compatibility*with hinting output. It is sad actually for hinting
results of 600
characters, we are not able to provides Fedora users 1800 additional
2. Main goal of Liberation fonts is to providing compatibility fonts for
Windows fonts Arial, Times New Roam and Courier. Presently coverage of
these Windows fonts is huge. So just think if documents cover other
characters than existing coverage of Liberation, and someone open same
document in Fedora, will user get his intended layout?
are we still achieving our main goal of providing compatibility fonts to
problem is something different and we need to think on that. I will see if
i can do something for Fedora 19.