Quoting Pravin Satpute (2016-08-16 13:28:12) > Liberation 2.* are equivalent to Croscore. Only difference is, in > Liberation fonts we are doing is more opensource way, i.e. maintaining > its source file and generating it with our tools while Croscore is > just ttf and mostly that is provided by proprietary vendor. Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2016-08-17 12:27:19) >> has value for fonts. Just want to emphasize that properly >> _developed_ fonts with proper sources available has _greater_ value >> than equally shaped commercially promoted but >> over-the-fence-developed fonts. > > I don't agree as generally as you state it. Croscore's upstream is > Google and if they are actively developing the font but decided to do > this "behind the fence" and only release the fonts occasionally in TTF > format, then that's fine. It's their decision and the OPL license > allows for that. Not sure what you disagree with. I argue that in the context of two _equivalent_ fonts, the one with proper source has higher value than the one with better promoted name. Yes, I agree that less transparently developed fonts has _some_ value. Yes, I agree that TTF format can be proper source. If "Liberation 2.* are equivalent to Croscore" as Pravin summarized, then it follows that only one of them is properly developed, the other is only superficially mangling the other. Or am I missing something? > Honestly, I don't see much added value in always running behind > uptream, occasionally taking one of their releases, converting the > TTFs into SFDs and calling that "sources". I agree there is little value in labeling conversion output as source. Smells like an attack on Liberation development style rather than reflection on my remarks, so leaving it to Pravin to comment further. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature