On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Paul Flo Williams <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > TK009 wrote: >> While looking for some other fonts to package I noticed that all the >> LG Oski fonts are "All rights reserved" in the font metadata. I didn't >> look at any of the other LG fonts. As the fonts wish list page says >> GPL3 I was a bit confused. >> >> More additions to the retirement page? > > Hmm, there definitely seems to be a discrepancy between the wish list > pages and the original website and fonts here. > > I can't see any reference to the license terms on the website. It simply > says they are "free". > > Looking at Oski Blackfoot, which dates from 2003, the metadata says "All > rights reserved" in the copyright field, with no license field. > > Looking at African Serif, a newer one from 2007, the license agreement now > says: > > --quote-- > This typeface is the property of Chris Harvey and its use by you is > covered under the terms of a license agreement. You have obtained this > typeface software either directly from Chris Harvey or together with > software distributed by one of the products at languagegeek.com. > > This font took a lot of work to make, so please, unless you have entered > into a specific license agreement granting you additional rights, your use > of this software is limited to your workstation for your own publishing > use. You may not copy or distribute this software. Aboriginal community > members and projects relating to Aboriginal languages may distribute the > font freely. Contact Chris Harvey at languagegeek.com to get this free > distribution permission. > --endquote-- > > Or, the shorter version: "You can have this font. Don't show ANYONE!" > > -- > Paul Williams > http://hisdeedsaredust.com/category/fonts/feed > > The site has a "GNU page", I use that term loosely. On that page he says download page and fonts are GPL unless the license in the font states otherwise. First sentence on the page. As Nicolas has said, this could just be a bug. I believe he purposely being deceptive with the license. He knows what gpl is and knows what the licenses of his fonts are and in all this time has seen no reason to change the font metadata. I see Nicolas has responded about the GNU page. Here is were I get confused. If I were contact this person and they say yes its GPL and never change the metadata how is fedora protected from him coming back later and saying they were not GPL? Or is this a case of as long as we did our bit we don't really care? I brought these fonts up just to give a heads up so that no one wastes their time with them. Whether they should be reitred or not is someone else's call. I have no interest in contacting the creator simply because this does not appear to be a case of ignorance, rather ambiguity of the licenses are by design. Common with font creators. _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
