On 12-12-12 05:43 AM, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: > > Consider some of the following goals that designers have: > > - Avoiding collisions - it greatly reduces the likelihood that a Modified Version would get confused with the Original Version, whether by an end user, someone bundling the font into a separate app or collection, or an application attempting to render a document that specifies a particular font. > - Protecting authors - it requires any font that bears the RFNs to retain the functionality and quality of the Original Version which protects the author's reputation > - Minimizing support - it enables authors to adequately support their fonts without the burden of troubleshooting fonts bearing the same name that might have been poorly modified. > - Encouraging derivatives - it encourages separately-named branches to exist and be properly identified so that new, interesting enhancements can get reviewed and eventually merged back into the main project. Nicolas, Every single reason you listed equally applies to software. It's been a source of unlimited grief for me that Ubuntu patches gnome-terminal in ways that I wouldn't approve. So, it looks like you are indeed suggesting that the Free Software world should take a double standard approach when defining free fonts vs free software. behdad _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
