Still no Apache. How come?

hhp

The Droid fonts were "professionally" done - commisioned by Google. Released under the Apache license.

I know. Same with Roboto. Reynir's list is what I was wondering about.

hhp

@Dan Gayle: “The URW++ fonts.”
I gave the site a look. Can you be more specific?

Correction for last night's braino...

Typeface:    Jivita
Fonts:       4: Rg/RgI/Bd/BdI
Foundry:     Association for Insight Meditation
Home:        http://www.softerviews.org/
Version:     1.30
Format:      TTF
Licensing:   GPL
Designer:    Bhikkhu Pesala
Description: Sans-serif, dash of Eurostile, rest crazy weird

Waal, man, rustlin' Injuns is wrathly unenlightened.

Full update to the AIM list... two faces dropped

Hmm, what's up with that? One of the two fonts, Carita, seemed to be a quality digitization of Carolus, which is commercially unavailable and comes up periodically on the Type ID board (most recent thread here). The only reason given by the AIM fonts website: "Carita and Hattha were withdrawn as they will no longer be updated to match my other fonts." They also request others not to host or redistribute their fonts, which seems contradictory to the GNU license under which they're released.

@Chris: I assume Dan was referring to the Ghostscript fonts that were contributed to the project by URW.

@Té Rowan:
Since redistribution of Jivita is not allowed, it may be free, but it isn't open-source.

@gargoyle / @Chris : There are two sets of URW++ open source fonts. The Ghostscript fonts are available under either GPL or AFPL; the GhostPCL fonts are AFPL only, which is technically open source but not copyleft (as it restricts commercial use).

A while ago I put some PDF samples of the two URW++ sets together. Might as well link them here.
GPL Ghostscript fonts: http://www.altsan.org/fontinfo/urw_ps.pdf
AFPL GhostPCL fonts: http://www.altsan.org/fontinfo/urw_pcl.pdf

I am going with the assumption that by 'his fonts', Pesala means the unmodified files as downloaded from softerviews, so were I to rename them, they'd be my fonts (and my responsibility) thereafter. And with Carita officially paid off, it's open to forking by anyone willing to shower it with TLC and updates.

it's open to forking

There are at least two reasons not to be so cavalier:
1) The "designer" (using the term loosely - see #2) apparently doesn't want you to.
2) It's based on a design that's not necessarily an orphan: https://typography.guru/forums/topic/108434-forwarding

BTW, it's not really "your font" unless you made it yourself. And even then you owe the people who came before you.

hhp

Remember, Carita's base licence is the GPL. And the GPL springs out of Hacker Tradition. Pesala asks elsewhere that if you modify and re-release the font(s), that you change the name as well.

Ya gotta read all of the FAQ.

And the GPL springs out of Hacker Tradition

This Hacker Tradition? : )

Reynir, I fail to see how you addressed either of my two points.

hhp

the GhostPCL fonts are AFPL only, which is technically open source but not copyleft (as it restricts commercial use).

I'm pretty sure you'll find that a restriction on commercial use means its not open source any way you look at it.

@Karl – The Jargon File and other docs at http://www.catb.org/~esr/ document the Hacker Tradition much better than I ever could.

@hrant – Point #2 is currently extraneous, as far as OSity is concerned. Point #1: Pesala can only request that others not cache his fonts. The GPL disallows otherwise. RTFL.

OSity? I thought we were talking about Carita.

Pesala can request anything he wants, and you can do anything you want. Choose wisely.

hhp

I don't think that the GPL disallows trademark rights, even if it disallows patent rights. Look at the case of CentOS and Scientific Linux vis-a-vis Red Hat Enterprise Linux, for example.

Thus, "you can do anything you want", if one excludes things one would do which would create criminal or civil liability, is not strictly true.

I didn't say there are no consequences! :-)
What I meant was that the way Pesala wants us to treat his work should at least be taken under advisement.

hhp

/me rolls eyes.

OSity = Open Source status.

That been said, it shall also be said that it's most important that you research the licence(s) from primary (at most secondary) sources. Those expecting me to be a competent source are so far beyond lost that even the Hubble Space Telescope couldn't find them. So there.

lol Té :)

I have compiled a font pack of open source licensed Unicode Hebrew script fonts. The font pack is available here.

Most of the fonts in the font pack are licensed with the SIL OFL, GPL, or GPL+FE, although there are some other less well known licenses in there as well. Enjoy!

Are any of them under the Apache license?

hhp

http://typographica.org/features/our-favorite-typefaces-of-2012/
So, out of 54 selections there are a whopping total of... one open-source fonts. And that's by Adobe! "It's an evil Font Mafia CONSPIRACY, I tell you!!"

hhp