Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Dave Crossland


Dave Crossland
Last Active
Invited by
Admin James Puckett
  • Re: [OTVar] hidden axis flag

    Laurence said:
    it’s probably a bad idea to show unregistered axes at all
    I don't like the idea that axes need to be registered in order to show up in UIs, which is what this implies.

    I think it is very important to show some unregistered axes! (And not show some others, on a per font basis.)

    I would even offer that "Registration" would be better called "Interoperable" because that is its purpose.

    I must stress how important I think it is to see visibility-flagged and registered-for-interop as orthogonal issues. 

    John Hudson said:
    So you want are flags for 'Always show this', 'Sometimes show this', and 'Never show this'? The 'sometimes' criteria are unclear. What does 'advanced' UI actually mean, and who gets to decide? If a developer has a single UI paradigm, should this flag be interpreted as include or exclude the axis?

    I am optimistic that the 'sometimes' criteria can become clear; but if it isn't, then it can be interpreted either as include or exclude, depending on the audience of the app; perhaps InDesign would veer to include and Word would veer to exclude. However, probably it should be specified to be the same as default ('no flags at all') choice..?

    I believe a user should always be able to see all axes; but I have a clear sense of orders of magnitude different kinds of users. 

    Dave, what's the difference between "show in expert modes" and "show to developers and people who really care to see everything"?
    The difference is between typographic experts - who know how to make things look just right - and developers/engineers - who know how to make things work. 

    Its tempting to conceptualize of the experts sitting between the engineers on the right and the 'everyday users' on the left, in a spectrum of sophistication. But actually this is not a straight line, because the sophistication is of a different kind. 

    That's why 3 levels of flagging are needed.
  • Re: Public domain pros and cons

    Personal opinion, not legal advice:

    John, you are raising a point that I was only referencing by implication, so I want to thank you for that. My view is that in the eu and many other places, unlike the us, and as Khaled had said, you can't put something in the public domain, it can only have the monopoly rights adhered to it expire. So if your intent is to gift something to humanity, to make it available to everyone, which seems to me the actual urge behind an attempt to put something in the public domain, then the ofl and licenses like it keep that intent intact, while licenses like cc0 and mit/bsd/Apache do not and allow that intent to be subverted by downstream 3rd parties. Maybe you don't mind your work that you intended for everyone with a computer not being available to everyone with a computer, but it seems kind of short sighted to me. 

    Ray, you say you want fewer support emails. Only the ofl is going to deliver that, because everything else is less common and going to generate more questions. Adam and John both know from the Noto mailing list how many questions Noto gets, under ofl, so there's no way away from it, but using the same license as the majority of other libre fonts (with an extensive and well maintained FAQ) is the best Ray can do. (Well maybe the way to get away from it completely is to ask someone else to maintain the fonts. I'm happy to do that...  If they are ofl :)

    In the USA typeface designers are categorically all public domain except those subject to design patents which are very few and those last for 15 years. In the eu there are design rights that adhere for a few years unless registered and then join the public domain; if registered they join after 5 years unless re-registered, which can be done up to a maximum term of 25 years. In most places it's ambiguous. In Israel typeface designs are subject to regular authoring copyrights, so I'm not sure how anyone draws anything there without risking a lawsuit. Well, they just shoulder the risk, I guess. 

    Anyway, I don't think the meaning of the public domain is that all monopoly rights expired, that's just the situation. The meaning of all monopoly rights expiring is that the public's freedom to use, study, modify and redistribute the work is unfettered; and no monopoly rights can be re-adhered (as far as I know.) So the ofl recreates that situation before the monopoly rights expire. 
  • Re: Naming font modifications

    I've overseen the kind of upgrade Joyce describes and used "Family two" and "Family 2" depending on what felt right for the face. Pondering it now... since numbers are sometimes used for grades perhaps "Family v2" would be best generally. For me, Jubilation seems more like a "Two" than a "2" :)

    (I also published a lot of families as "Something One" which are single style families intended to be expanded later, but are not the Regular Roman style of what that family will be, so likely the rerelease full family will then be simply "Something" rather than "Something Two")
  • Re: Public domain pros and cons

    Or, offer the font under the user's choice of several highly permissive licenses.
    That's also not a good idea imho, because if the OFL is one of them, it prohibits redistribution by downstream people "under any other license."

    The OFL and only the OFL is the best way to make font available without restrictions to the general public, with requirements that maintain the work in that status. Everything else was not written for the unique situation that a font is in, and doesn't fit quite right in some way. 
    If you want to allow unrestricted use, the spirit of public domain, use the sil ofl. 

    Or the fantastically simple and unrestrictive MIT license: the 'do-whatever-the-fuck-you-want' license.
    Rather, that's ;) But WTFPL is a terrible idea for serious work, not only because it is inherently unwelcome in important contexts (eg, anything involving kids, and some businesses) but because it is not legally sound (and therefore prohibited in large businesses.) 

    The MIT license has a similar problem to the main CC licenses, in that it requires distribution of the license alongside the work, and since the design is subject to copyright or other rights in some places, and doesn't have a document embedding exception, then the simple requirement is prohibitively restrictive.
  • Re: Public domain pros and cons

    None of the cc licenses, including cc zero, are good for fonts. All except cc zero have attribution terms which may require eg a business card to have attribution text about the typeface. Cc zero says you can't assert any other rights in the work, even if you later want to on some situation. 

    If you want to allow unrestricted use, the spirit of public domain, use the sil ofl.