Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8
- To: Khaled Hosny <email@example.com>
- Cc: Walter Landry <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8
- From: Florian Weimer <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:11:23 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20100416075726.GA2330@khaled-laptop> (Khaled Hosny's message of "Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:57:26 +0200")
- References: <[🔎] 4BC5F37C.email@example.com> <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] 4BC6FB1D.email@example.com> <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] 20100416075726.GA2330@khaled-laptop>
* Khaled Hosny:
> Fonts are art, many font designer are very concerned about the
> authenticity of their designs and wouldn't allow modified version to
> carry the names of their fonts, it is very valid concern.
There's also the more pressing concern that altering widths will lead
to changed linebreaks and legacy documents, which can be huge problem
(so we generally want to avoid this and treat instances as bugs).
But most programs have some sort of font name mapping mechanism, so it
doesn't matter at all how the font is called. This mechanism is
already used to swap in free fonts in documents which refer to
completely encumbered ones (which we cannot even distribute).
But those technical possibilities also mean that license requirements
about naming are totally and utterly pointless.