Am Donnerstag, den 29.08.2013, 19:49 +0200 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
> Am Freitag, den 23.08.2013, 16:32 -0300 schrieb Rogério Brito:
> > Anyway, back to URW Garamond No. 8, I guess that the letter that I
> > wrote may still be relevant. Should I try sending it?
>
> Any news on this?
Rogerio?
Hey Rogerio et al.,
Am Freitag, den 23.08.2013, 16:32 -0300 schrieb Rogério Brito:
> Anyway, back to URW Garamond No. 8, I guess that the letter that I
> wrote may still be relevant. Should I try sending it?
Any news on this?
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.d
Am Dienstag, den 27.08.2013, 10:44 +0200 schrieb roucaries bastien:
> Could you ask also for the fontforge source and not like the
> postscript font the resulting file ?
We should be careful and not request too much at once from them.
I once had a short mail with RMS about that topic and the FSF
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 23.08.2013, 16:32 -0300 schrieb Rogério Brito:
>> Anyway, back to URW Garamond No. 8, I guess that the letter that I
>> wrote may still be relevant. Should I try sending it?
>
> Yes, please do so! Maybe we have some chance
Am Freitag, den 23.08.2013, 16:32 -0300 schrieb Rogério Brito:
> Anyway, back to URW Garamond No. 8, I guess that the letter that I
> wrote may still be relevant. Should I try sending it?
Yes, please do so! Maybe we have some chance of success as a Linux
distributor requesting relicensing of one
Hi, Fabian and others.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Dear Rogerio et al.,
>
>> Thank you very much for your review. I just sent a letter to the GUST to
>> see how they approached URW to change the license of the Base 35 fonts.
>> Let's hope that they answer soon.
>
>
Dear Rogerio et al.,
> Thank you very much for your review. I just sent a letter to the GUST to
> see how they approached URW to change the license of the Base 35 fonts.
> Let's hope that they answer soon.
this was Tue, 20 Apr 2010. Did you ever get a response to your letter to
GUST and has your
Rogério Brito wrote:
> Hi, Walter and other people.
>
> On Apr 13 2010, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Re: Software Licence for URW Garamond Fonts
>>
>> To whom it may concern,
>>
>> I am a software developer associated with the Debian project [1], an
>> association of individuals who work together to
Hi, Walter and other people.
On Apr 13 2010, Walter Landry wrote:
> Rogério Brito wrote:
> > P.S.: Please, as I am not a native speaker of English, feel free to
> > correct my grammar, style or anything that would improve the text.
>
> Here you go. Feel free to ignore any or all of my suggestio
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> > Hi Walter,
> >
> > There are obviously varying needs and preferences (prejudices?) along
> > the licensing spectrum but IMHO your reply is very reductive.
> >
> > At the end of the day upstreams make up
* 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 line
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
>> Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
>>> Hi Walter,
>>>
>>> There are obviously varying needs and preferences (prejudices?) along
>>> the licensing spectrum but IMHO your reply is very reductive.
>>>
>>> At the end of the day upstreams make up their own mind
Khaled Hosny wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 07:20:30PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
>> > BTW one of the goals we have in the Debian fonts team is to work to
>> > reduce the big duplication of fonts in various packages in our archive:
>> > there is no absolute need for
Walter Landry wrote:
> Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
>> Hi Walter,
>>
>> There are obviously varying needs and preferences (prejudices?) along
>> the licensing spectrum but IMHO your reply is very reductive.
>>
>> At the end of the day upstreams make up their own mind about how they
>> license their ow
* Khaled Hosny [100416 10:15]:
> 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.
I doubt there are people caring much more for the quality of their wor
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 07:20:30PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> > Hi Walter,
> >
> > There are obviously varying needs and preferences (prejudices?) along
> > the licensing spectrum but IMHO your reply is very reductive.
> >
> > At the end of the day upstreams make up
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> Hi Walter,
>
> There are obviously varying needs and preferences (prejudices?) along
> the licensing spectrum but IMHO your reply is very reductive.
>
> At the end of the day upstreams make up their own mind about how they
> license their own creation but allow me to e
[...]
>> But then I found this page
>>
>> http://www.advogato.org/person/raph/diary/257.html
>>
>> which says
>>
>> By the way, URW did not donate these fonts under the GPL out of
>> their own hearts. Artifex paid good money for them, and donated them
>> out of a mix of self-interest and a
Walter Landry wrote:
> Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
>> Paul Wise wrote:
>>> I'd strongly suggest to indicate a preference about which license you
>>> would like them to choose.
>>>
>>> I would personally suggest standard FLOSS licenses like BSD,
>>> MIT/Expat, ISC, GPL + font exception etc. If those a
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
>> I'd strongly suggest to indicate a preference about which license you
>> would like them to choose.
>>
>> I would personally suggest standard FLOSS licenses like BSD,
>> MIT/Expat, ISC, GPL + font exception etc. If those aren't acceptable,
>> the SIL
Paul Wise wrote:
> I'd strongly suggest to indicate a preference about which license you
> would like them to choose.
>
> I would personally suggest standard FLOSS licenses like BSD,
> MIT/Expat, ISC, GPL + font exception etc. If those aren't acceptable,
> the SIL OFL is a DFSG-compatible compromi
Rogério Brito wrote:
> P.S.: Please, as I am not a native speaker of English, feel free to
> correct my grammar, style or anything that would improve the text.
Here you go. Feel free to ignore any or all of my suggestions.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Re: Software Licence for URW Garamo
Hi, pabs.
2010/4/14 Paul Wise :
> I'd strongly suggest to indicate a preference about which license you
> would like them to choose.
That's very good. But how should the request be phrased? Should it be
a formal letter? Since you are a native English speaker, can you
suggest any rewording? Other
I'd strongly suggest to indicate a preference about which license you
would like them to choose.
I would personally suggest standard FLOSS licenses like BSD,
MIT/Expat, ISC, GPL + font exception etc. If those aren't acceptable,
the SIL OFL is a DFSG-compatible compromise between font foundry needs
Dear people,
Below is a draft of a letter that I intend to send to (URW)++ to try
to get them to release the URW Garamond No. 8 fonts in a license that
is free according to the DFSG.
This move was suggested to me by Khaled Hosny, a member of the Arabic
TeX community.
I am open to comments and cr
25 matches
Mail list logo
