[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Can a font with an unfree character be free?

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:51:31AM -0400, Nathan Edges II wrote:
> [...]
> http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/japanese/resource/other/z00014/z0001406_e.html
> [...]
> If a font includes [the symbol of access wheelchair] as a character,
> can it be free?

The character itself isn't non-free, but rather the character being used
with the designated colors/directions:

> The Symbol shall always be used in the design and proportions approved
> by the Assembly, a reproduction of which shall be disseminated with this
> resolution. The color used for the Symbol shall be white on a dark blue
> background, to conform with the international road sign conventions,
> unless there are compelling reasons to use other colors. The figure
> should face to the right, unless there are directional reasons for it to
> face left.

To be restricted, the symbol has to have the same proportions that
were approved by the Assembly, it must be white on a dark blue
background, and facing right.

But this, I don't quite understand:

> No change in or addition to the Symbol design shall be permitted. The
> basic symbol may be used in conjunction with additional signs or text
> for directional or identification purposes, as long as they do not
> distort the integrity of the Symbol.

By the symbol do they mean the basic wheelchair, or the whole thing
with all of the colors? I'd try to contact someone and see what they
mean by that, because otherwise I may be interpereting this wrong.

If the restrictions are only places on the right-facing, white on
blue wheelchair then it should be fine to redistribute. If by "symbol"
they mean the basic wheelchair, then redistribution wouldn't fall
under DFSG-free terms from what I can tell.
http://digital-haze.net/~pobega/ - My Website
If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative
programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they
restrict the use of these programs. 
 - Richard Salmon

Reply to: