If you grab it from the very top, you can drag it to a different edge of the main window, the top or bottom if you want it to be horizontal. It can also be a floating palette if you drag it to one of the edges of the screen instead.
I don't usually weigh in on critiques, but one really basic misstep here is, the thickness of the curved strokes (on the o and g especially) should be thicker at their thickest point than the straight-ish strokes. This would also be true on the top bowl of the B, but maybe to a lesser extent.
I don't see the problem with the term "reverse contrast". It could be taken as the reverse of normal contrast, whatever that may be for a particular script. It doesn't have to mean thin verticals and thick horizontals just because that's what it means for latin fonts.
When answering licensing questions, I tend to use the terms font (the name and associated visual appearance) and font file (the thing you install, i.e., the software). From the point of view of a font developer, font and font file are redundant, and we tend to use the term typeface for the first thing and font for the second thing. But colloquially, I think font and font file is how users think of it, or at least makes more sense to them if they haven't thought about it. Caring about the distinction between typeface and font has become an internet joke. Most users know what a file is on a computer, so I think it works, and is easier than trying to correct or educate multitudes of users.