Menu
▾
▴
indlinux-group
|
From: Sudhanwa J. <sud...@gm...> - 2009-04-02 21:04:20
|
Hi, I have been reading this thread for quite some time and I think it is time to comment on it now. Some points that I noticed: 1. people comment on the mail/s directly without even visiting the referred site and reading the contents. 2. If the first mail gave the correct URL (http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com), at least some further mails would have avoided. 3. In the copyright notice within the font, it clearly says: Usage of this font "Aksharyogini" is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned on the website http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com. You can read this using gnome-font-viewer.K font viewer does not show that. All the debian font related packages I saw, everywhere the terms and conditions/licenses is mentioned under the copyright file section. 4. The terms and conditions mentioned are very simple, clear and straight forward for any common user. People usually run away if they see something called "license". Unfortunately, in the FOSS world, it is (probably) the most sacred word. 5. I was under the impression that Debian is THE FREE (as in FOSS) distro. I did some digging and to my surprise, found that it has non-free components also. (could be very less but it is there.) eg. Package: t1-xfree86-nonfree (4.2.1-3) [non-free] that is mentioned here: http://packages.debian.org/stable/x11/t1-xfree86-nonfree 6. As such, if non-free components are also allowed in Debian, why people are talking as if this font is kind of "untouchable" 7. People are "free" to select/deselect the fonts from Debian or any other distro. Apart from the above, We (my family) believe that this is the only font released (at least in India. Unaware about other countries) in the name of an author. 3500 downloads is more than what we expected and the basic purpose of releasing the font is being served. Getting it in Debian has helped in this. Thanks to the FOSS community for the same. Thanks and regards, -Sudhanwa /me looking forward to digging in Fedora and others.. ~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~~ www.sudhanwa.com |
|
From: Christian P. <bu...@de...> - 2009-04-03 06:06:11
|
Quoting Sudhanwa Jogalekar (sud...@gm...): > 1. people comment on the mail/s directly without even visiting the > referred site and reading the contents. I am sorry for this, being one of those who did so. But that raises an interesting point. Pointing the potential reader/user to the web site in order to know the exact terms and conditions for the use of some software (or font, in that case), is restricting this to people who are online and, believe it or not, not everybody is, all time long..:-) > 2. If the first mail gave the correct URL > (http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com), at least some further mails would > have avoided. Well, at least, being the ignorant that I am, I would have learned who Yogini Joglekar is (I think that, whatever is done in the license in the future, that mention -"She was a famous Marathi writer...- should be added to the current text). > > 3. In the copyright notice within the font, it clearly says: Usage of > this font "Aksharyogini" is subject to the terms and conditions > mentioned on the website http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com. You can > read this using gnome-font-viewer.K font viewer does not show that. > All the debian font related packages I saw, everywhere the terms and > conditions/licenses is mentioned under the copyright file section. In debian/copyright to be precise, which is installed as /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright. All *official* Debian packages must give the licensing conditions in that file. If they don't, this is a release critical bug. One should note that NEW packages uploaded to the archive are inspected very carefully by Debian ftpmasters. THat has not always been the case and some older package may have escaped that inspection. About the binary package that provides the AksharYogini fonts (ttf-devanagari-fonts), this is done in /usr/share/doc/ttf-devanagari-fonts/copyright. > 4. The terms and conditions mentioned are very simple, clear and > straight forward for any common user. People usually run away if they > see something called "license". Unfortunately, in the FOSS world, it > is (probably) the most sacred word. Because, this is the ground on which Free Software is based. It is thus fairly logical that people involved in Free Software are sensitive (and often very clever) about licensing conditions. > > 5. I was under the impression that Debian is THE FREE (as in FOSS) > distro. I did some digging and to my surprise, found that it has > non-free components also. (could be very less but it is there.) eg. > Package: t1-xfree86-nonfree (4.2.1-3) [non-free] that is mentioned > here: http://packages.debian.org/stable/x11/t1-xfree86-nonfree non-free is not part of Debian. It is provided as a courtesy to our users and maintained on a best effort basis. For instance, the security team does not follow packages in non-free. A general agreement in the project is to acknowledge that some of our users may need software which is non free for various reasons, so if we can provide them with such software and, to some extent, with the same packaging quality we provide in other packages, we do it. But, again, non-free is not part of Debian. It is provided on the same hosts than the Debian archive but, for instance, not pointed by default. > > 6. As such, if non-free components are also allowed in Debian, why > people are talking as if this font is kind of "untouchable" That's not the point. The point (at least with my Debian hat) is deciding whether it is possible to have this font in Debian as part of the official Debian archive, namely *not* non-free. I am in no way a specialist in Indic languages, I can't even judge on the technical quality of the font. However, given the credit I give to the expertise of some people in this community, I think that this font deserves the effort of having it in Debian (and the same stands for other distributions, or other Free Software environments such as OpenSolaris)....*if the font's license allows for it*. So, please don't take this as offensive to the font and/or the font author. This is the exact contrary. We pointed that the current license seems to have some missing information to make it free with regard to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which are used even outside Debian to define what is considered Free Software and what is not)...and we are trying to find out what could be improved to make it free....without changing the spirit of the font Currently, ttf-devanagari-fonts is part of Debian main. However, given the license, I'm not sure it should. In Debian Social Contract, which all Debian developers committed to, it is said "We will not hide problems". This is a potential problem and we have to deal with it. > > 7. People are "free" to select/deselect the fonts from Debian or any > other distro. The point here is that, given the information we have, I should file a release critical bug against the source package providing AksharYogini fonts because it provides a binary package that includes non-free material. That release critical would mean we should drop the *source* package that provides ttf-devanagari-fonts from Debian main. That is ttf-indic-fonts, which provides.....most of the most usable fonts for Indic languages. We certainly don't want this and this is why this thread is here: to address that issue and try finding a solution. I can actually see 3 ways to go: - to be convinced that the current license is free with regards of the DFSG (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) - change the license for a license that's compatible with DFSG. That does not necessarily mean that the spirit of the original license should be dropped. There are certainly enough existing licenses floating around that may fit the will of the copyright holder(s) - drop the font from the ttf-indic-fonts package > > Apart from the above, > > We (my family) believe that this is the only font released (at least > in India. Unaware about other countries) in the name of an author. > > 3500 downloads is more than what we expected and the basic purpose of > releasing the font is being served. Getting it in Debian has helped in > this. Thanks to the FOSS community for the same. About this, you mentioned having no idea of the number of installs. The following may help: http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=ttf-indic-fonts It show that, out of all Debian systems that use the popularity-contest package, 7% of them have the package installed....which is huge. |
|
From: Kartik M. <kar...@gm...> - 2009-04-05 00:43:54
|
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Sudhanwa Jogalekar <sud...@gm...> wrote: > 6. As such, if non-free components are also allowed in Debian, why > people are talking as if this font is kind of "untouchable" It can stay in 'non-free' section without any problems. -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Debian GNU/Linux Developer Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com |
|
From: Rahul B. <rah...@ya...> - 2009-04-03 11:12:49
|
Christian has already clarified mostly everything. Here are my complementary bits.. ----- Original Message ---- > From: Sudhanwa Jogalekar <sud...@gm...> > To: "Indian Linux group ," <ind...@li...> > Sent: Friday, 3 April, 2009 2:34:14 AM > Subject: Re: [Indlinux-group] AksharYogini font family released > <snip> > 3. In the copyright notice within the font, it clearly says: Usage of > this font "Aksharyogini" is subject to the terms and conditions > mentioned on the website http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com. You can > read this using gnome-font-viewer.K font viewer does not show that. > All the debian font related packages I saw, everywhere the terms and > conditions/licenses is mentioned under the copyright file section. > Ideally, copyright statement should be included in every source file, and additionally details of the terms and conditions can be provided in a separate file. This is a universally accepted norm, and you do have a 'copyright' field in the ttf file format, where exactly your statement is mentioned. Irrespective of any application, its location is correct. So no need to worry about location of the statement. > 4. The terms and conditions mentioned are very simple, clear and > straight forward for any common user. People usually run away if they > see something called "license". This is an assumption. I cannot say if its right or wrong, please reconsider whether its so critically important one. I would assume almost every user has signed an EULA irrespective of softwares being foss or proprietary ones. >Unfortunately, in the FOSS world, it > is (probably) the most sacred word. > In Foss world, licenses are actually tricks, techniques and way of ensuring the fulfilment of the responsibility to ensure and protect the freedom. An example in this case, what if there is a modification needed in the AksharYogini font? I can easily see one, that it is missing the glyphs for U+0971 ans U+0972 which are the newly added characters to Devanagari, and atleast U+0972 is very important one for Marathi. Now, if someone wishes to add these glyphs to the fonts with all the good spirit of helping the project and people using it, s/he should be free to do so. But the unclear or incomplete terms given for the font do not allow to do so, as there is no garantee if the original auther will not have any objections to other's modifications. I cannot even host the modifed version on my own server, as that would possibly mean violation of the copyrights and I may get sued by the owners of the font, even if rest of the terms are fulfilled. This certainly is not how FOSS projects operate. For the importance of the freedom ensured by the Free Software licenses, please refer to any speech given by RMS on the philosophy behind the movement (available easily on youtube). He is the ultimate expert in convincing it :-) > 5. I was under the impression that Debian is THE FREE (as in FOSS) > distro. I did some digging and to my surprise, found that it has > non-free components also. (could be very less but it is there.) eg. > Package: t1-xfree86-nonfree (4.2.1-3) [non-free] that is mentioned > here: http://packages.debian.org/stable/x11/t1-xfree86-nonfree > > 6. As such, if non-free components are also allowed in Debian, why > people are talking as if this font is kind of "untouchable" > If you wouldn't mind, I think it can be packaged as 'nonfree' for Debian, as suggested by Karunakar. But that doesn't ensures inclusion for all the other distributions, which is personally very dissapointing. Having it in all the major distros by default would be just great. > 7. People are "free" to select/deselect the fonts from Debian or any > other distro. > > Apart from the above, > > We (my family) believe that this is the only font released (at least > in India. Unaware about other countries) in the name of an author. > I am not sure what exactly is meant here. If it is about the auther Yogini Joglekar, it might be true. I am not aware if any fonts are named after any of the literary authers. Otherwise, mostly all the free fonts in India do acknowledge their authers, such as Lohit, Gargi, Samyak, Pothana etc. Many of them maintain a good racord and credits of even small contributions made by volunteers. To summarize, the 'freedom to modify' issue is not yet answered. It is not a big deal to put a name of a already well defined foss license of your choice additional to your own terms, given you wish to make it Free and Open Source. But it is a big deal to not ensure freedoms for a product that potentially needs to be accepted as free. If you wish to change the statement in the font files and have any technical problem, I guess many people here, including me, would be more than happy to help out. Thanks & Regards, Rahul. From Chandigarh to Chennai - find friends all over India. Go to http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups/citygroups/ |
|
From: शिरीष <sh...@gu...> - 2009-04-03 12:05:10
|
2009/4/3 Rahul Bhalerao <rah...@ya...>: > To summarize, the 'freedom to modify' issue is not yet answered. > It is not a big deal to put a name of a already well defined foss license of your choice additional to your own terms, given you wish to make it Free and Open Source. > But it is a big deal to not ensure freedoms for a product that potentially needs to be accepted as free. > > If you wish to change the statement in the font files and have any technical problem, I guess many people here, including me, would be more than happy to help out. > this "freedom to modify" is a tricky combination of words... in other words it means i would let you be the king in my place, legally speaking :-) it is just as dangerous as POA (power of attorney) not plan of action! in current scenario i think unless issued by the release by original holders that is a unwarranted freedom, and anyone can and may disagree... with this... |
|
From: शिरीष <sh...@gu...> - 2009-04-03 13:40:05
|
2009/4/3 शिरीष <sh...@gu...>: > 2009/4/3 Rahul Bhalerao <rah...@ya...>: >> To summarize, the 'freedom to modify' issue is not yet answered. >> It is not a big deal to put a name of a already well defined foss license of your choice additional to your own terms, given you wish to make it Free and Open Source. >> But it is a big deal to not ensure freedoms for a product that potentially needs to be accepted as free. >> >> If you wish to change the statement in the font files and have any technical problem, I guess many people here, including me, would be more than happy to help out. >> > > this "freedom to modify" is a tricky combination of words... in other > words it means i would let you be the king in my place, legally > speaking :-) it is just as dangerous as POA (power of attorney) not > plan of action! > > in current scenario i think unless issued by the release by original > holders that is a unwarranted freedom, and anyone can and may > disagree... with this... > i will explain what i means in terms that many might understand... even if one is convinced that ॐ is the beginning of universe by some standard, nobody will allow me to put it in the first slot in Unicode standard... yes, there is a process to modify unicode standard to some and certain extent... and think of how inadequate one would feel if ॐ has to prove credentials for that :-) So ॐ been aptly placed at a some position that made sense to the thinker of ISCII who contributed to the unicode standard... now whether to follow unicode standard because it does not offer ॐ full freedom to modify is a completely different choice ॐ makes... at least i am enjoying the healthy non-discussion! |
|
From: Mahesh T. P. <pai...@ya...> - 2009-04-03 14:05:22
|
This is not a apecific reply to anybody; just posting a couple of links for whoever is interested to follow. As rightly pointed out, the discussion is about being able to include the font in Debian "main"; not just "non-free". The DFSG:- http://www.debian.org/social_contract For how to choose between "main", "contrib" and "non-free":- http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html#contents To be specific, the link is:- http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-sections Some more links:- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis Now, I will go and read Debian-Legal has to say about this. ;-) -- Mahesh T. Pai || http://paivakil.blogspot.com He is wise who knows the sources of knowledge -- who knows who has written and where it is to be found. --A.A. Hodge |
|
From: शिरीष <sh...@gu...> - 2009-04-04 04:47:38
|
2009/4/3 Mahesh T. Pai <pai...@ya...>: > This is not a apecific reply to anybody; just posting a couple of > links for whoever is interested to follow. > > As rightly pointed out, the discussion is about being able to include > the font in Debian "main"; not just "non-free". > > The DFSG:- http://www.debian.org/social_contract > > For how to choose between "main", "contrib" and "non-free":- > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html#contents > > To be specific, the link is:- > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-sections > > Some more links:- > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException > > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis > > > > Now, I will go and read Debian-Legal has to say about this. ;-) > Yes this all is very interesting... some would be glad to know and learn from it while others may ask what is the jurisdiction of these licenses... any disputes are to fight in US court or International court (in Hague or some such place), lot of things change on the basis of that... Anything to deal with citizens of some countries not subjected to "internationally accepted laws" (you know such states) because .... ०१२३४५६७८९ so all these efforts will be lopsided unless there is a clear and transparent process to deal with the disputes arising to that agreed by all members by consensus, not by democratic vote :-) And then again all these thoughts will be part of debian-illegal :-) |
|
From: Christian P. <bu...@de...> - 2009-04-06 06:34:15
|
Quoting Guntupalli Karunakar (kar...@in...): > Since its pretty much like status quo wont change on above two, we > could best leave it at that. After a few days thinking to this, I think I can hereby mention that I don't entirely agree with Karunakar, here. This with all respect I owe him for his work and commitment. >From what I understand of the Indlinux group goals, the values of Fee Software are a great priority for the group members. It means that we should be committed to have softwrae that's as free as possible. In the case of these fonts, it is clear that some improvement is possible. At least, the "spirit" of the original license and what I understand from the authors' goals does not seem incompatible with possible improvement. So, I'd like to know who we should get in touch with to discuss about the license conditions and a possible way to have the missing bits added so that the font may be considered free. Of course, that will need to be very respectful of the initial work and to avoid what could appear as "bashing" the current license wordig (in short, not appear as a professor teachin a pupil what a license should be). I think I can do that (well, I'm sometimes slightly arrogant in some ways: I'm not French by error....but I can manage to slow this down). This is by doing exactly this that we finally were able to include Sun's Java to Debian, for instance..:-) So, what we did for Java can probably be done for the AksharYogini font. |
|
From: G K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-04-06 07:26:48
|
Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Guntupalli Karunakar (kar...@in...): > >> Since its pretty much like status quo wont change on above two, we >> could best leave it at that. > > > After a few days thinking to this, I think I can hereby mention that I > don't entirely agree with Karunakar, here. This with all respect I owe > him for his work and commitment. > Well I would admit that I didnt try hard enough..giving up with the thought that it would be futile exercise. >>From what I understand of the Indlinux group goals, the values of Fee > Software are a great priority for the group members. > > It means that we should be committed to have softwrae that's as free > as possible. > > In the case of these fonts, it is clear that some improvement is > possible. At least, the "spirit" of the original license and what I > understand from the authors' goals does not seem incompatible with > possible improvement. > > So, I'd like to know who we should get in touch with to discuss about > the license conditions and a possible way to have the missing bits > added so that the font may be considered free. > The one way out I could think of is if their terms and conditions can also specify clearly if the font can be modified (or derivative works can be created). Discussing with the designer it seemed, derivative works are discouraged, but modifications / bugs in font could be suggested. So one way out - say publisher is considered upstream, then bugs/patches for font could be made and sent upstream, to have it fixed and a new release made. So in such case upstream, is holding control on font release, and maintain it as official font release, I am not sure if this still will make font 'free' . > Of course, that will need to be very respectful of the initial work > and to avoid what could appear as "bashing" the current license wordig > (in short, not appear as a professor teachin a pupil what a license > should be). > > I think I can do that (well, I'm sometimes slightly arrogant in some > ways: I'm not French by error....but I can manage to slow this down). > > This is by doing exactly this that we finally were able to include > Sun's Java to Debian, for instance..:-) > > So, what we did for Java can probably be done for the AksharYogini > font. point of contacts as from http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/ aksharyogini at sudhanwa.com panravi at yahoo.com Regards, Karunakar |
|
From: Sankarshan (সঙ্কর্ষণ) <fos...@gm...> - 2009-04-06 07:38:36
|
On 04/06/2009 12:56 PM, G Karunakar wrote: > The one way out I could think of is if their terms and conditions can also > specify clearly if the font can be modified (or derivative works can be > created). Discussing with the designer it seemed, derivative works are > discouraged, but modifications / bugs in font could be suggested. > > So one way out - say publisher is considered upstream, then bugs/patches > for font could be made and sent upstream, to have it fixed and a new > release made. So in such case upstream, is holding control on font > release, and maintain it as official font release, I am not sure if this > still will make font 'free' . There is a somewhat elusive corner case - that of handling derivatives based on the font which include modifications not in the original font itself. The current and, somewhat technical issue is that the precise wording does not seem to allow modifications unless it is done by the upstream (where upstream is as defined by Karunakar above). -- http://www.gutenberg.net - Fine literature digitally re-published http://www.plos.org - Public Library of Science http://www.creativecommons.org - Flexible copyright for creative work |
|
From: Christian P. <bu...@de...> - 2009-04-06 17:20:48
|
Quoting "Sankarshan (????????)" (fos...@gm...): > There is a somewhat elusive corner case - that of handling derivatives > based on the font which include modifications not in the original font > itself. > > The current and, somewhat technical issue is that the precise wording > does not seem to allow modifications unless it is done by the upstream > (where upstream is as defined by Karunakar above). It seems to me that the Open Font License does fit this quite well: ----------------------------------------------------------- SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.0 - 22 November 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------- PREAMBLE The goals of the Open Font License (OFL) are to stimulate worldwide development of cooperative font projects, to support the font creation efforts of academic and linguistic communities, and to provide an open framework in which fonts may be shared and improved in partnership with others. The OFL allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. The fonts, including any derivative works, can be bundled, embedded, redistributed and sold with any software provided that the font names of derivative works are changed. The fonts and derivatives, however, cannot be released under any other type of license. DEFINITIONS "Font Software" refers to any and all of the following: - font files - data files - source code - build scripts - documentation "Reserved Font Name" refers to the Font Software name as seen by users and any other names as specified after the copyright statement. "Standard Version" refers to the collection of Font Software components as distributed by the Copyright Holder. "Modified Version" refers to any derivative font software made by adding to, deleting, or substituting -- in part or in whole -- any of the components of the Standard Version, by changing formats or by porting the Font Software to a new environment. "Author" refers to any designer, engineer, programmer, technical writer or other person who contributed to the Font Software. PERMISSION & CONDITIONS Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy, merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and unmodified copies of the Font Software, subject to the following conditions: 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Standard or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. 2) Standard or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, redistributed and sold with any software, provided that each copy contains the above copyright notice and this license. These can be included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or in the appropriate machine-readable metadata fields within text or binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user. 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction applies to all references stored in the Font Software, such as the font menu name and other font description fields, which are used to differentiate the font from others. 4) The name(s) of the Copyright Holder or the Author(s) of the Font Software shall not be used to promote, endorse or advertise any Modified Version, except to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the Copyright Holder and the Author(s) or with their explicit written permission. 5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed using this license, and may not be distributed under any other license. TERMINATION This license becomes null and void if any of the above conditions are not met. DISCLAIMER THE FONT SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR OTHER RIGHT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE FONT SOFTWARE OR FROM OTHER DEALINGS IN THE FONT SOFTWARE. |
|
From: K. K. S. <su...@gm...> - 2009-04-06 10:43:11
|
On Monday 06 Apr 2009 12:56:37 pm G Karunakar wrote: > So one way out - say publisher is considered upstream, then bugs/patches > for font could be made and sent upstream, to have it fixed and a new > release made. So in such case upstream, is holding control on font > release, and maintain it as official font release, I am not sure if this > still will make font 'free' . I expect not. Over a period of time, the downstream will accumulate a lot of changes that may not get into the upstream font and the latter will cease to be relevant. Given the amount of effort that has gone into this font, it would be a pity to let it fade way like that. Possibilities are: a) Modify the current license to explicitly include FOSS freedoms. This may involve discussions around the type of license (Creative Commons, MIT etc.) and the elements of FOSS that needs to be in it. b) Fork the font into two. Akshar Yogini would remain a branded font with its current set of features, while its derivative will be released with a free license and a different name. Modifications to the latter may or may not be absorbed into the former. c) Leave it as it is. It will be like Mona Lisa - work of art, warts and all. No further derivations. Topic closed. Subbu |
|
From: Guntupalli K. <kar...@in...> - 2009-04-14 18:40:47
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:12:54 +0530 K. K. Subramaniam wrote: > On Monday 06 Apr 2009 12:56:37 pm G Karunakar wrote: > > So one way out - say publisher is considered upstream, then > > bugs/patches for font could be made and sent upstream, to have it > > fixed and a new release made. So in such case upstream, is > > holding control on font release, and maintain it as official font > > release, I am not sure if this still will make font 'free' . > I expect not. Over a period of time, the downstream will accumulate > a lot of changes that may not get into the upstream font and the > latter will cease to be relevant. Given the amount of effort that > has gone into this font, it would be a pity to let it fade way like > that. > > Possibilities are: > a) Modify the current license to explicitly include FOSS freedoms. > This may involve discussions around the type of license (Creative > Commons, MIT etc.) and the elements of FOSS that needs to be in it. > > b) Fork the font into two. Akshar Yogini would remain a branded > font with its current set of features, while its derivative will be > released with a free license and a different name. Modifications to > the latter may or may not be absorbed into the former. > > c) Leave it as it is. It will be like Mona Lisa - work of art, > warts and all. No further derivations. Topic closed. > Its (c).. topic closed! Karunakar -- ********************************** * कार्य: http://www.indlinux.org * * चिठ्ठा: http://cartoonsoft.com/blog * ********************************** |
|
From: शिरीष <sh...@gu...> - 2009-04-07 05:11:53
|
2009/4/6 Christian Perrier <bu...@de...>: > Quoting Guntupalli Karunakar (kar...@in...): > > I think I can do that (well, I'm sometimes slightly arrogant in some > ways: I'm not French by error....but I can manage to slow this down). > without casting any doubt on your personality i want to explain the "error" this sentence above "I'm not French by error...." does not make it clear whether you are French or not. maybe it does to you, but not in the whole sense of it. two angles: 1. i am French by design. 2. it's an error that i am not French. The purpose of this message is to explain the context of my other messages, not to cast a shadow on your writings or personality. |
|
From: Christian P. <bu...@de...> - 2009-04-07 06:01:25
|
Quoting sh...@gu...: > without casting any doubt on your personality i want to explain the "error" > > this sentence above "I'm not French by error...." does not make it > clear whether you are French or not. > > maybe it does to you, but not in the whole sense of it. > > two angles: > > 1. i am French by design. > 2. it's an error that i am not French. The exact meaning was: - I am French - French people have the reputation to be somewhat arrogant, worldwide, giving lessons to everybody - I happen to be arrogant from time to time - so, I can't deny that I'm French... (that would be called a syllogism: "All French are arrogant. I am French. Thus, I'm arrogant". Actually, this is a fake syllogism as the exact meaning was "All French are arrogant. I am arrogant. Thus I am French"...then it becomes a sophism) Please note that the above is an example of another well-known French "quality" which I use (too) often: being pedantic..:-) The exact sentence in my own language is "je ne suis pas français par hasard" which was unfortunately difficult for me to translate properly in English (which I happen to speak quite badly with words missing from time to time...). As additionnal clue to the sentence, a small smiley would probably have helped understanding I was more or less making fun of myself... ;-) |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X