From: Guntupalli K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-03-30 15:21:52
|
Hi All, Some good news for Indic users. The full AksharYogini font family is released. Perhaps first devanagari opentype font in full family (normal, bold, italic, bold-italic) is available from AksharYogini page - http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/aksharyogini.html “We released AksharYogini (Normal) Font on 1st Nov. 2006. (First Death Anniversary of Yogini Joglekar) Right from the begining, we have received great response from the users and that has encouraged us to release the full font family. On the occasion of Gudhipadwa (Chaitra Shuddha 1, 1931; that is 27th March 2009) , we are now happy to release the complete “AksharYogini font family”. Following fonts are available AksharYogini Normal AksharYogini Bold AksharYogini Italic AksharYogini Bold-Italic “AksharYogini” family of fonts are Unicode compliant. You can use them on your websites, printed documents, graphic designs, books and any other purposes. Do let us know about your usage of the font. We would like to mention it on this website (http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/aksharyogini.html) Regards, Karunakar -- ********************************** * कार्य: http://www.indlinux.org * * चिठ्ठा: http://cartoonsoft.com/blog * ********************************** |
From: Christian P. <bu...@de...> - 2009-03-30 17:37:07
|
Quoting Guntupalli Karunakar (kar...@in...): > Hi All, > Some good news for Indic users. > > The full AksharYogini font family is released. Perhaps first > devanagari opentype font in full family (normal, bold, italic, > bold-italic) is available from AksharYogini page - > http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/aksharyogini.html What is the licence for that|these font(s)? |
From: Guntupalli K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-03-30 18:07:51
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:03:47 +0200 Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Guntupalli Karunakar (kar...@in...): > > Hi All, > > Some good news for Indic users. > > > > The full AksharYogini font family is released. Perhaps first > > devanagari opentype font in full family (normal, bold, italic, > > bold-italic) is available from AksharYogini page - > > http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/aksharyogini.html > > > What is the licence for that|these font(s)? > While the text on site is not in a clear license format, from what i learnt from publisher, its similar to CC - share, attribute, no derivatives. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/in/ Regards, Karunakar -- ********************************** * कार्य: http://www.indlinux.org * * चिठ्ठा: http://cartoonsoft.com/blog * ********************************** |
From: शिरीष <sh...@gu...> - 2009-03-31 12:44:26
|
2009/3/30 Guntupalli Karunakar <kar...@in...>: > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:03:47 +0200 > Christian Perrier wrote: > >> Quoting Guntupalli Karunakar (kar...@in...): >>> Hi All, >> > Some good news for Indic users. >> > >> > The full AksharYogini font family is released. Perhaps first >> > devanagari opentype font in full family (normal, bold, italic, >> > bold-italic) is available from AksharYogini page - >> > http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/aksharyogini.html >> >> >> What is the licence for that|these font(s)? >> > > While the text on site is not in a clear license format, > from what i learnt from publisher, its similar to CC - share, > attribute, no derivatives. > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/in/ > > Regards, > Karunakar > i doubt this release of font fits into any existing CC or like licenses... it is not just (meaning appropriate) to try to fit it that way as well... i think, it is better to understand the spirit behind these releases and have a grace to acknowledge those sentiments... there is only so much ink or paper while the philosophy or thought behind it can take volumes that one may not be capable of reading | writing easily... |
From: शिरीष <sh...@gu...> - 2009-03-31 13:57:16
|
> > i doubt this release of font fits into any existing CC or like > licenses... it is not just (meaning appropriate) to try to fit it > that way as well... > > i think, it is better to understand the spirit behind these releases > and have a grace to acknowledge those sentiments... > > there is only so much ink or paper while the philosophy or thought > behind it can take volumes that one may not be capable of reading | > writing easily... > i do not speak on behalf of the publishers.. i am just speaking on the basis of the usefulness of the font and it's release which has been beneficial to me personally... { from a different perspective the real taste of the pudding is in eating it... though that can be arguable too } from my testing it reveals that this font covers a larger spectrum of Devanagari while making it fit for use for Hindi and marathi texts. i applied it to several text that i had an occasion to input and mostly it fits well... and addition of BOLD, ITalic and bold-italic release make it more print friendly which means going beyond just composing the texts... Hope this does clears the air about technology and language composing without touching the word called "lie-sense" |
From: Guntupalli K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-04-04 19:43:46
|
Hi, WIth liberty of top posting.. I would like to kill this thread.. if at all the font is to be discussed, please shift to its functionality. Since two things are clear: From publishers point of view the terms & conditions they have set, stand straight forward enough in layman point of view.. -ie a font is available, one can copy, redistribute it, embed it etc. as long as they acknowledge the terms & conditions. >From FOSS point of view, the terms and conditions give almost no clue on if font can be modified, so becomes non-free and cannot be packaged into official releases of distributions. Only consolation, it might still go into non-free repositories for Debian. For RPM based distros, perhaps if someone makes an RPM (and made available from base font site), then might help users using those distros. Since its pretty much like status quo wont change on above two, we could best leave it at that. Regards, Karunakar On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:27:10 +0530 शिरीष wrote: > > > > i doubt this release of font fits into any existing CC or like > > licenses... it is not just (meaning appropriate) to try to fit it > > that way as well... > > > > i think, it is better to understand the spirit behind these > > releases and have a grace to acknowledge those sentiments... > > > > there is only so much ink or paper while the philosophy or thought > > behind it can take volumes that one may not be capable of reading > > | writing easily... > > > > i do not speak on behalf of the publishers.. i am just speaking on > the basis of the usefulness of the font and it's release which has > been beneficial to me personally... { from a different perspective > the real taste of the pudding is in eating it... though that can be > arguable too } > > from my testing it reveals that this font covers a larger spectrum > of Devanagari while making it fit for use for Hindi and marathi > texts. i applied it to several text that i had an occasion to > input and mostly it fits well... and addition of BOLD, ITalic and > bold-italic release make it more print friendly which means going > beyond just composing the texts... > > Hope this does clears the air about technology and language > composing without touching the word called "lie-sense" > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > IndLinux-group mailing list > Ind...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/indlinux-group -- ********************************** * कार्य: http://www.indlinux.org * * चिठ्ठा: http://cartoonsoft.com/blog * ********************************** |
From: Christian P. <bu...@de...> - 2009-03-31 17:21:12
|
Quoting Guntupalli Karunakar (kar...@in...): > > > The full AksharYogini font family is released. Perhaps first > > > devanagari opentype font in full family (normal, bold, italic, > > > bold-italic) is available from AksharYogini page - > > > http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/aksharyogini.html > > > > > > What is the licence for that|these font(s)? > > > > While the text on site is not in a clear license format, > from what i learnt from publisher, its similar to CC - share, > attribute, no derivatives. That should be made clear, really. I was also surprised, while going to the said site to see the mention that the font is in Debian which I think it not correct (and, if it is, the license being unclear is conflicting and the package should be dropped unless the license issues are cleared). |
From: Mahesh T. P. <pai...@ya...> - 2009-03-30 19:17:59
|
Guntupalli Karunakar said on Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:37:27PM +0530,: > > While the text on site is not in a clear license format, > from what i learnt from publisher, In which case, asking them to put up a clear license would help. Can somebody look into the font's license notice (I recall font editors like pfaedit having such a field. -- Mahesh T. Pai || http://paivakil.blogspot.com First they came for the Jews; and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists; and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists; and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me; and there was no one left to speak out for me. |
From: प्रविण स. <pra...@gm...> - 2009-03-31 10:31:28
|
2009/3/31 Mahesh T. Pai <pai...@ya...> > Guntupalli Karunakar said on Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:37:27PM +0530,: > > > > While the text on site is not in a clear license format, > > from what i learnt from publisher, > > In which case, asking them to put up a clear license would help. > > Can somebody look into the font's license notice (I recall font > editors like pfaedit having such a field. In these font License field is not available, one can insert it in using Fontforge, Elements -> Font Info -> TTFnames releasing one separate file naming License info will help lot Best Regards, ----------------- Pravin Satpute |
From: शिरीष <sh...@gu...> - 2009-03-31 13:02:19
|
The conditions (one can call this a license) under which it is released is clearly mentioned on the site. The attempt to fix this in CC is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole... at best... |
From: Mahesh T. P. <pai...@ya...> - 2009-03-31 15:47:41
|
प्रविण सातपुते said on Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 04:01:23PM +0530,: > > In which case, asking them to put up a clear license would help. Oh. Duh. I finally persuaded myself to go to the site, and teh license is clear - <BEGINQUOTE> You are encouraged to freely distribute the font through your websites or other media, provided you mention the base URL for the font availability (http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com) and also the terms and conditions given below. The font is free to use, free to share, free to distribute subject to the terms and conditions mentioned below. 1. The user acknowledges that this font is released in the memory of Yogini Joglekar 2. The user acknoledges the efforts and the creative work of the font creator Mr. Ravi Pande (contact email id panravi at yahoo.com ) 3. THE FONT IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR OWNERS OR PERSONS/ORGANISATIONS RELATED TO THIS FONT AND/OR THIS WEBSITE BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITIES. </ENDQUTOE> > In these font License field is not available, one can insert it in > using Fontforge, Elements -> Font Info -> TTFnames releasing one > separate file naming License info will help lot My question was:- "have the (original) authors done this? I guess this is not easy, since the license itself has no name. Still, it is Free, but with a (old style) BSD-ish but non-onerous publicity clause. People may disagree about the non-onerousness though. But that would be nitpicking. -- Mahesh T. Pai || http://paivakil.blogspot.com With freedom comes responsibility. Do not use unauthorised copies of copyrighted material. |
From: Guntupalli K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-03-31 18:12:50
|
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:01:08 +0530 शिरीष wrote: > The conditions (one can call this a license) under which it is > released is clearly mentioned on the site. > > The attempt to fix this in CC is like trying to put a square peg in > a round hole... at best... > Frankly if I was a non-IT person, or no links to FOSS/philosophy, then the conditions on site sound plain enough to understand.. So call it the conditioning of mind in FOSS world that before looking/trying some "license" is asked for, whatever the conditions otherwise stated. Karunakar -- ********************************** * कार्य: http://www.indlinux.org * * चिठ्ठा: http://cartoonsoft.com/blog * ********************************** |
From: शिरीष <sh...@gu...> - 2009-04-01 05:29:46
|
2009/3/31 Guntupalli Karunakar <kar...@in...>: > On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:01:08 +0530 > शिरीष wrote: > >> The conditions (one can call this a license) under which it is >> released is clearly mentioned on the site. >> >> The attempt to fix this in CC is like trying to put a square peg in >> a round hole... at best... >> > > Frankly if I was a non-IT person, or no links to FOSS/philosophy, > then the conditions on site sound plain enough to understand.. > > So call it the conditioning of mind in FOSS world that before > looking/trying some "license" is asked for, whatever the conditions > otherwise stated. > without getting further into litigitty :-) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/license li·cense (lsns) n. 1. a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission. b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license. 2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect. 3. Latitude of action, especially in behavior or speech. See Synonyms at freedom. 4. a. Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: "When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near" Will Durant. b. Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness. tr.v. li·censed, li·cens·ing, li·cens·es 1. To give or yield permission to or for. 2. To grant a license to or for; authorize. See Synonyms at authorize. All these definitions clearly make Aksharyogini's conditions get covered under the word called "license" without calling it so. -- can freedom be subject to a license? |
From: Kartik M. <kar...@gm...> - 2009-04-01 05:33:02
|
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Guntupalli Karunakar <kar...@in...> wrote: > Frankly if I was a non-IT person, or no links to FOSS/philosophy, > then the conditions on site sound plain enough to understand.. Karunakar, Can you try to contact upstream and make fonts available under proper license? Until, then - I think we need to remove this font from Debian. -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Debian GNU/Linux Developer Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com |
From: Christian P. <bu...@de...> - 2009-04-01 06:21:00
|
Quoting Kartik Mistry (kar...@gm...): > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Guntupalli Karunakar > <kar...@in...> wrote: > > Frankly if I was a non-IT person, or no links to FOSS/philosophy, > > then the conditions on site sound plain enough to understand.. > > Karunakar, Can you try to contact upstream and make fonts available > under proper license? Until, then - I think we need to remove this > font from Debian. I'm personnally unsure of this. The license is unusual, sure....but could be considered Free...or not. This is why I asked for advice on debian-legal. |
From: शिरीष <sh...@gu...> - 2009-04-01 06:25:09
|
2009/4/1 Kartik Mistry <kar...@gm...>: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Guntupalli Karunakar > <kar...@in...> wrote: >> Frankly if I was a non-IT person, or no links to FOSS/philosophy, >> then the conditions on site sound plain enough to understand.. > > Karunakar, Can you try to contact upstream and make fonts available > under proper license? Until, then - I think we need to remove this > font from Debian. > non of my business but since the request to Karunakar has been made publicly here, i would state my opinion here... in true sense this font release conditions offers user more freedom than that available under any other license.. if one spend little bit more time thinking about it... eliminating this from debian or other linux distributions will simply make this more like MS Core fonts :-) Those who need it will have to get it from the "source"... to me the source of these fonts is internet.. not linux distribution nor windows os. |
From: Guntupalli K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-04-01 18:28:32
|
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:02:56 +0530 Kartik Mistry wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Guntupalli Karunakar > <kar...@in...> wrote: > > Frankly if I was a non-IT person, or no links to FOSS/philosophy, > > then the conditions on site sound plain enough to understand.. > > Karunakar, Can you try to contact upstream and make fonts available > under proper license? Until, then - I think we need to remove this > font from Debian. > I missed posting this part (resulting in confusion). "You are encouraged to freely distribute the font through your websites or other media, provided you mention the base URL for the font availability (http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com) and also the terms and conditions given below." So I from the side of publishers its clear. >From packaging point of view, decide as per packaging policy if the terms and conditions mentioned on site meet are satisfactory for packaging. Regads, Karunakar -- ********************************** * कार्य: http://www.indlinux.org * * चिठ्ठा: http://cartoonsoft.com/blog * ********************************** |
From: Guntupalli K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-04-01 18:52:34
|
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:02:56 +0530 Kartik Mistry wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Guntupalli Karunakar > <kar...@in...> wrote: > > Frankly if I was a non-IT person, or no links to FOSS/philosophy, > > then the conditions on site sound plain enough to understand.. > > Karunakar, Can you try to contact upstream and make fonts available > under proper license? Until, then - I think we need to remove this > font from Debian. > Or it might go as package in non-free section? Karunakar -- ********************************** * कार्य: http://www.indlinux.org * * चिठ्ठा: http://cartoonsoft.com/blog * ********************************** |
From: Rahul B. <rah...@ya...> - 2009-04-01 06:36:33
|
----- Original Message ---- > From: Kartik Mistry <kar...@gm...> > To: "Indian Linux group ," <ind...@li...> > Sent: Wednesday, 1 April, 2009 11:02:56 AM > Subject: Re: [Indlinux-group] AksharYogini font family released > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Guntupalli Karunakar > wrote: > > Frankly if I was a non-IT person, or no links to FOSS/philosophy, > > then the conditions on site sound plain enough to understand.. > > Karunakar, Can you try to contact upstream and make fonts available > under proper license? Until, then - I think we need to remove this > font from Debian. > Long back (more than a year) even I tried to package it for fedora, but got stuck with the license issue. Tried to persuade upstream to at least use the mention of GPLv2,v3 or OFL, but it did not happen. Even philosophically speaking the license terms noted on the website do not appear compatible with FOSS. Where are the 4 freedoms that Free Software ensures explicitly stated? Especially, freedom to modify and/or fork are not present at all. IMO, this certainly does not comply with Free Software, both technically and philosophically. With all due respect to the emotions involved with this font, and the quality of the font, I really wish it finally becomes unambiguously Free as in freedom. _ Rahul. Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ |
From: Kartik M. <kar...@gm...> - 2009-04-01 06:55:49
|
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Rahul Bhalerao <rah...@ya...> wrote: > Even philosophically speaking the license terms noted on the website do not appear compatible with FOSS. > Where are the 4 freedoms that Free Software ensures explicitly stated? Especially, freedom to modify and/or fork are not present at all. > IMO, this certainly does not comply with Free Software, both technically and philosophically. Shirish: ^^^ -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Debian GNU/Linux Developer Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com |
From: Christian P. <bu...@de...> - 2009-04-01 07:18:24
|
Quoting Mahesh T. Pai (pai...@ya...): > Oh. Duh. I finally persuaded myself to go to the site, and teh license > is clear - Yes. After thinking more than twice, I agree. I'm not entirely comfortable with the first clause: > 1. The user acknowledges that this font is released in the memory of Yogini Joglekar ...mostly because I don't really understand what's meant here and who is this person. This is probably very obvious to the original author but not me. Also would "the user ack" mean that every *user* of the font has to "agree" on these conditions (which raises interesting technical questions)? Probably not, at least in the author's intent but this, also, could me made clearer. > > In these font License field is not available, one can insert it in > > using Fontforge, Elements -> Font Info -> TTFnames releasing one > > separate file naming License info will help lot > > My question was:- "have the (original) authors done this? > > I guess this is not easy, since the license itself has no name. Maybe the author could be encouraged to adopt one of the various existing licenses. > Still, it is Free, but with a (old style) BSD-ish but non-onerous > publicity clause. People may disagree about the non-onerousness > though. But that would be nitpicking. I don't understand what you mean by "non-onerousness" here. |
From: Guntupalli K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-04-01 18:45:45
|
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 06:45:09 +0200 Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Mahesh T. Pai (pai...@ya...): > > > Oh. Duh. I finally persuaded myself to go to the site, and teh > > license is clear - > > Yes. After thinking more than twice, I agree. > > I'm not entirely comfortable with the first clause: > > > 1. The user acknowledges that this font is released in the memory > > of Yogini Joglekar > > ...mostly because I don't really understand what's meant here and > who is this person. This is probably very obvious to the original > author but not me. > Missed posting the base URL. http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/ which makes it clear. Karunakar -- ********************************** * कार्य: http://www.indlinux.org * * चिठ्ठा: http://cartoonsoft.com/blog * ********************************** |
From: Christian P. <bu...@de...> - 2009-04-01 17:25:48
|
Quoting Rahul Bhalerao (rah...@ya...): > Where are the 4 freedoms that Free Software ensures explicitly stated? Especially, freedom to modify and/or fork are not present at all. Yes. This is precisely what was pointed in debian-legal in answer to my request there. The license is not bad per se and, probably, the author's intent is to make it really free....but the wording is not in line with this. This is what often happens when people try to invent their own licenses while there are dozens of these floating around that have received enough attention and care to fit everybody's needs.... As of now, I would retain the lack of mention for "freedom for modify" as the major blocker for that font set to be considered Free. |
From: Guntupalli K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-04-01 18:45:34
|
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 18:16:16 +0200 Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Rahul Bhalerao (rah...@ya...): > > > Where are the 4 freedoms that Free Software ensures explicitly > > stated? Especially, freedom to modify and/or fork are not present > > at all. > > > Yes. This is precisely what was pointed in debian-legal in answer to > my request there. > > The license is not bad per se and, probably, the author's intent is > to make it really free....but the wording is not in line with > this. This is what often happens when people try to invent their own > licenses while there are dozens of these floating around that have > received enough attention and care to fit everybody's needs.... > > As of now, I would retain the lack of mention for "freedom for > modify" as the major blocker for that font set to be considered > Free. > Gist of some earlier discussions with designer was that the font is to be treated as work of art, so like in a painting, it be credited to the painter, while replicas (copies) could be made, font design is not to be modified. Bugs in font could be reported back to designer for fixing. Karunakar -- ********************************** * कार्य: http://www.indlinux.org * * चिठ्ठा: http://cartoonsoft.com/blog * ********************************** |
From: K. K. S. <su...@gm...> - 2009-04-02 03:41:15
|
On Thursday 02 Apr 2009 12:07:03 am Guntupalli Karunakar wrote: > Gist of some earlier discussions with designer was that the font is > to be treated as work of art, so like in a painting, it be credited > to the painter, while replicas (copies) could be made, font design is > not to be modified. Bugs in font could be reported back to designer > for fixing This sounds like the license used by TeX and METAFONT (www.tux.org). I can understand the author's sentiments about not allowing any modifications under the AksharYogini name. Would the author allow modifications if the changes are released under a different name with an attribution to the source of inspiration? Surely, the intent of the author to perpetuate the memory would be better served if the font is allowed to evolve over the years? Subbu |