I'm against the lodging of closed source free-fonts on Ubuntu software center

kevintheophile's picture

See: http://www.openfontlibrary.org/wiki/Existing_Free_Fonts

And go to the final page and see "Freeware Fonts"

No, no, no.

All these typodesigners, as Ray Larabie, Klein, and other don't allow to distribute, re-distribute and to derivate or remix their works, according their EULA. They don't want and won't hear the OpenFontLibrary's persuasion. These fonts are closed source while Linux is an open source software.

I found the Ray Larabie and other proprietary typodesigners freeware fonts housed on Ubuntu software center. Then why did Ubuntu house the Ray Larabie and other proprietary typodesigners closed source freeware fonts on its software center?

I'm against the house of Ray Larabie and other proprietary typodesigners fonts on Ubuntu because they're closed source! The closed source fonts, although are freeware, mustn't be housed on Ubuntu or any distros of Linux!


Because the users of Linux know what open source is and Linux is open source, if they know, they'll think all which are on Ubuntu are open source, then they'll modify and [re-]distribute the Ray Larabie and other proprietary typodesigners fonts without realizing that the derived works and [re-]distribution aren't allowed by Ray Larabie and other proprietary typodesigners!

I know you would tell us that there's description in fonts, but not all will view the fonts, not all know English, know reading in English and what EULA is!

I know you would say they can take the free-ware fonts on Ubuntu but they can't derive your works for projects and themes of Ubuntu or other. But if they want to modify? The closed source fonts mustn't be housed on any distros of Linux, only the open source fonts must be housed on Ubuntu or other distros of Linux because the users want to modify.

Then I'm against the house of closed source free-fonts on Ubuntu!

I'm fundamentalist and fanatic Linuxer.

Si_Daniels's picture

Wah! Toys out the pram. ;-)

>then they'll modify and [re-]distribute the Ray Larabie and other proprietary typodesigners fonts without realizing that the derived works and [re-]distribution aren't allowed by Ray Larabie and other proprietary typodesigners!

Seriously how many Ubuntu users are going to modify the fonts that come with the product? Does the product come with a font editor? The new Ubuntu fonts were made using proprietary tools including Microsoft VTT.

kevintheophile's picture


It doesn't import or care how many Ubuntu users are going to modify the fonts. Do you know FontForge and Inkscape? Then Ubuntu users are going to modify the letters of the proprietary typodesigners fonts at Inkscape, for example, they'll modify vectorizing a letter 'G' of CAC PInafore font:


How will you react if an Ubuntu user use your closed source freeware font and modify it at Inkscape?

And FontForge, it happens the same thing that in Inkscape.

Rhey want to modify the fonts at Inkscape at FontForge for projetcs, works, adds, magazines and books.

jacobh's picture

On Debian, at least, it’s pretty clear that these are not “free” in the sense of being open-source:

~$ aptitude show ttf-larabie-deco
Package: ttf-larabie-deco
New: yes
State: not installed
Version: 1:20011216-1.1
Priority: optional
Section: non-free/fonts
Maintainer: Erich Schubert
Uncompressed Size: 7,336 k
Depends: defoma
Recommends: fontconfig
[&c. emphasis mine]

I imagine the licence file itself will also be in /usr/share/doc/$packagename/copyright if Ubuntu follows the Debian model.

Unless you use one of the Free Software Foundation endorsed distributions which contain no non-open-source software, it is almost inevitable that some things you can get from a package manager will not be Open Source, be they binary drivers for graphics cards or pieces of software such as Flash. I don’t see why that is a bigger issue with Fonts then any of these.

kevintheophile's picture



Following are the GNU/Linux distributions we know of which have a firm policy commitment to only include and only propose free software. They reject non-free applications, non-free programming platforms, non-free drivers, or non-free firmware “blobs”. If by mistake they do include any, they remove it. To learn more about what makes for a free GNU/Linux distribution, see our Guidelines for Free System Distributions.

Then why were the closed source pseudofree-fonts of Ray Larabie or other proprietary typodesigners lodged on Ubuntu software center? They must be removed!

I'll fight and discuss the non-free fonts with Mark, Ubuntu's founder and presidnet of Canonical. I'll invite and persuade Mark to remove the closed source fonts from Ubuntu.

kevintheophile's picture

I have just invited my old unbearable "enemy" Ray Larabie to argue and discuss with us here. I want to challenge him.

Ray Larabie's picture

It was a mistake to get involved with open source licensing. I was told that my terms were acceptable when I agreed to allow them in the repository. I assumed that the person who set up the contract with me knew what they were doing.

Kevin is correct. Those fonts should be removed. If someone can remove them from the repository I would be pleased. I wanted to update the fonts because I don't like the idea of people being stuck with shoddy fonts with created a decade ago. It seems it's impossible to update them so they should be removed.

There's a lot of pressure on me to comply to everyone else's idea of what constitutes an acceptable license agreement. If my EULA isn't acceptable, choose someone else's fonts.

kevintheophile's picture

I won! I'll forward this topic and Ray's message to Mark, Ubuntu's founder.

The closed source fonts of Ray Larabie and proprietary typodesigners will disappear from Ubuntu!

I hope the updated and new fonts of Ray Larabie DON'T be added to Ubuntu software center because I'm against and they're not open source. They're under Ray's EULA.

I won!


kevintheophile's picture

Ray Larabie, will you add or update your fonts to Ubuntu software center?

Please, don't add or update your fonts to Ubuntu or any distros of LInux software centers because yours update and new fonts aren't open source, are under your EULA which doesn't allow to distribute, re-distribute, remix or modify your fonts. I don't want them on Ubuntu or any distros of Linux!

I want just open source fonts!

Ray Larabie's picture

Ray Larabie, will you add or update your fonts to Ubuntu software center?

No, thank you.

I don't want them on Ubuntu or any distros of Linux!

Cool. Me neither.

I want just open source fonts!

We are in agreement. If you can have these removed without my involvement, I'd very much appreciate it. Having those fonts in the repository has been nothing but a source of irritation for me.

kevintheophile's picture

Wowww! I won!


The Ubuntu users will be free of depending on the proprietary typodesigners' EULAs! If they're not free and break the EULA rules, Ray Larabie will prosecute and report the users to the justice court by the derived works that aren't allowed by Ray!

I don't want Ubuntu user to be arrested under because of derived works and EULAs rules!

Let's challenge, discuss and persuade Mark and Canonical to remove all pseudofreeware fonts of proprietary typodesigners from Ubuntu. Let's fight for the revolution of open source, GPL and freedom as the French fought for the French Revolution!

Ray Larabie's picture

Kevin, please don't speak on my behalf. I'm not threatening anyone. If my EULA doesn't comply with open source rules, then I recommend their removal. That's all. I was led to believe that my customized agreement would be acceptable. Now I can see it clearly goes against open source rules. I have no interest in modifying the agreement any further and distributing old, broken versions of my fonts doesn't do anyone any good.

I recommend that my fonts be removed. I don't require them to be and there will be no consequences from me if they're not removed. This is Kevin's battle, not mine.

If anyone would like to discuss open source licensing with me: compose an email. Select all. Delete. I don't want to hear about it. If you succeed or fail in removing them, I still don't want to hear about it.

blank's picture

Let's fight for the revolution of open source, GPL and freedom as the French fought for the French Revolution!

Good idea! I’ll start by playing the part of Marat and ordering all the Linux geeks to a date with Mademoiselle Guillotine.

jacobh's picture

Somewhat against my better judgement, just in case anyone has misinterpreted what I said based on Kevin's replies:

Then why were the closed source pseudofree-fonts of Ray Larabie or other proprietary typodesigners lodged on Ubuntu software center? They must be removed!

If you looked at the list of endorsed Linux distributions, you would have noticed that Ubuntu is not there (nor almost any other well-known distribution). The reason for this is that all the major distributions include software which is free--as in you don't have to pay for it--but not open-source. Indeed, they even have an explanation page which states: "Ubuntu provides specific repositories of nonfree software, and Canonical expressly promotes and recommends nonfree software under the Ubuntu name in some of their distribution channels."

It is not as if fonts are the only non-open-source pieces of software shipped by Ubuntu or Canonical. Ubuntu has lots of packages which disallow modification. For example, the Nvidia drivers have a license which says:

No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.

I don't see how this is different from the distribution of these fonts...

Ray Larabie's picture

I guess so but please make them go away so I don't have to deal with fanatics. I'm sick and tired of the mentally ill pestering me about my EULA.

mjkerpan's picture

I'm sorry, but this whole thing strikes me as a bit silly. I'm all for free software and open fonts, but to attack somebody because they don't want to release fonts under an open license is a bit silly. Maybe, if you want someone to release fonts as open source, you should pay them to do it, like Google is doing, instead of complaining about it on the Internet.

fujito's picture

Google really pays people for releasing their fonts under open source license? Do you refer to the google web fonts? If yes, then I think, they just asked the font designers if they would allow google to use the fonts for the webfonts-project.

But I agree with mjkerpan: Asking a designer kindly if he could consider publishing his fonts under open source is certainly much better then attacking the designer.

I had a look at the homepage of Ray Larabie and the many comments there are severly insulting Ray Larabie. I hope that these comments are not from a typophile member.

@kevintheophile: Linux and Open Source are great but you make reader of this thread think that Ray Larabie is a criminal.

Khaled Hosny's picture

If you don't want non-free software don't install it, I don't want it myself, but it does not give you the right to insult others for not accepting your rules. I myself consider non-free software immoral but it does not give me the right to insult people who don't share my ideas, also I'm grateful for people who provide free of charge fonts for non-commercial use as we say in Egypt half blindness is better than total blindness.

They do pay, not that much but good enough for someone who would release his fonts under libre license anyway.

kevintheophile's picture


I'll forward this topic and your messages to Mark, Canonical and Linux foundations, trying to invite and persuade them to remove your fonts and the non-open source fonts from the repository and from Ubuntu software centers.


Ah, yes, I read and I understood, but I'm still against the distribution of non-open source fonts to any distros of Linux because many Linux users will use the proprietary typodesigners fonts which are under EULAs, for moidfying them at Inkscape, Xara Xtreme and FontForge for adds, homeworks, works, "flyers", films, videos of Youtube, etc.

I'll try to invite and persuade Mark, Canonical foundation and other Linux distros founders to remove all the non-open source fonts and replace them by the open source fonts of Google Fonts Directory and Debian Fonts from Gürack from Switzerland.

Yeah, I love when you call us fanatics. But Winusers, fanboys of Mac OS, of FontLab, Fontmanager, FontCreator, etc. are fanatic too. Will they annoy you?

Did you mean Canonical paid the open source fonts Ubuntu for the typodesigner Dalton Maag?

@fujito, I didn't call Ray Larabie criminal, but I'm only and just against the distribution, lodging or addition of any non-open source fonts to any distros of Linux because they're under EULAs, which are enemies of GPL.

I don't want because they abused of prices and molested us, wanted and run after our money! The prices are outrageous and absurd!

Badwindows, Bad Apple, BadAdobe, BadCorel and BadLab are greedy, thieves, manipulator and made us, specially Latin Americans and Africans suffering a lot. They think we all are rich and have much money.

But and the Africans? Didn't you see many and many Africans are suffering, sick, poor and are hungary and thirsty? Will the Africans pay for Badwindows, Bad Apple, BadAdobe, BadCorel and BadLab? No, because they don't have much money and are poor, if they bought them, they'll lose their life with hunger and thrist!

Yes, the most of Africans use Badwindows, but their Badwindows are pirate. In Africa, Badwindows, BadAdobe and BadCorel are pirate and are cheaper. Do you want to see the real price that Africans must pay for Adobe Photoshop?

In Africa and South Africa, Photoshop costs full US $849.00 ex tax and upgrade from US $245.00 ex tax!

Will Africans pay for it? NO, they're expensive! While in USA, it costs full from US $699.00 and upgrade from US $199.00 and in UK, it costs full from £657.60 or £548.00 ex VAT and upgrade from £190.80 and £159.00 ex VAT!!!!

Bad Adobe is greed, thief and hypocrite!

Have Badwindow$, Bad Apple and Bad Adobe ever distributed some always-free Adobe softwares to some
poor Africans? Nothinng and never. What they want is $$$$! They don't worry about the Africans and don't care or mind what happened with the Africans! They worry only about the money.

If they're already richer, why are they still running after our money. Weren't they pleased with how much money they have? They're megalomaniac, egoist and egocentric!

If Badwindows, BadAdobe, BadCorel and Bad Apple want to be the death of the piracy, they have to reduce the nonesnse prices! If they don't want to reduce, the piracy will always grow up and will never finish! If they want to be the death of virus and hackers, they have to open the source, but if they don't want, Winusers and Maccers will always be favourite targets of hackers and virus! They're su.ckers! They're Masonic Illuminati who want $$$$$$!


Down with Adobe, Corel, Apple and Windows!
Let's fight for the revolution of freedom, open source and free softwares or we'll die as the French revolutionary woman said to the public in French: Allons lutter ou mourrons!
Remember of the French lemme: Liberté, Fraternité et Égalité that the mnopolist empires viotaed!

kevintheophile's picture

I've just sent an e-mail to Mark Slutth and Canonical and Ubuntu officials. I invite them to read this topic and discuss with us. I'm waiting for their answers.

quadibloc's picture

I don't know about the fonts, but the failure of many Linux distributions to include closed-source device drivers, and the practice of the Linux team in changing the device driver interface with each release, is basically Linux shooting itself in the foot. If it's likely that your computer might have the wrong video card or something to be able to use a non-commercial Linux distribution... that's just one more reason not to bother with Linux.

It's when there are almost as many Linux desktops out there as Windows desktops that Linux will have stuff available for it, making it a viable alternative.

miha's picture

Ah, yes, I read and I understood, but I'm still against the distribution of non-open source fonts to any distros of Linux because many Linux users will use the proprietary typodesigners fonts which are under EULAs, for moidfying them at Inkscape, Xara Xtreme and FontForge for adds, homeworks, works, "flyers", films, videos of Youtube, etc.

Except his EULA permits using Inkscape and Xara Xtreme (but not FontForge) for modifying fonts and using them for adds, homeworks, works, "flyers", films, videos of Youtube, etc.

kevintheophile's picture


Ah, yes, but if the Linux user want to modify the fonts at FontForge for projecting Ubuntu themes to Gnome-Look.org for "customizing" the Ubuntu system?

miha's picture

As I understand, no (and also wrote no FontForge).

kevintheophile's picture

@miha, see, the EULA doesn't allow to add more characters on Ray Larabie's or other proprietary typodesigners fonts if there're not accented letters in his or their fonts, for example, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish accents and Greek and Russian fonts.

Then EULA is enemy of GPL and freedom. I'm enemy of EULA because it doesn't allow to add more Spanish and Russian characters in the right fonts which are under EULA!

I want only and only open source fonts to Ubuntu! I'm against the closed source fonts!

kevintheophile's picture

Linux isn't for closed source fonts because Linux is open source!
Closed fonts aren't for Linux because closed source fonts are closed source!

Closed and open sources are enemies, can't be in agreement, can't walk together, as politics and religions can't walk together!

bubulle's picture

I've just been pointed to this by a fellow member of the pkg-fonts team in Debian.

It's actually funny as I just took over the "ttf-larabie" fonts package in name of the team. The main point was actually improving the packaging techniques and drop support for a few obsolete packaging behaviour.

This package is part of the "non-free" section in Debian and this is why it is also present in Ubuntu.

Why is it in non free? Because the license does not meet de Debian Free Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). These guidelines are certainly not a way to reject those who develop software that doesn't meet them or put shame on them.
Not being free according to these guidelines is certainly not a shame and burst in flames of hell.

As it is probably known (and somehow debated by the FSF), Debian (let me quote the DFSG : " acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works."

So, as a consequence :
- ttf-larabie will remain packaged as it has apparently a quite significant user base : http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=ttf-larabie
- it will remain in the non-free section of the archive so as an extra areas of the Debian archive, which is not part of Debian
- any derived distribution is free to include it or to choose not including it.

To the original author : please don't spread misconception of what free software is and how it should be promoted. My personal opinion is that, by pushing your ideas the way you're doing, you're doing more harm than good to Free Software.

And, by the way, I very much doubt that Mark Shuttleworth will follow your suggestion. Just guessing..:-)

Ray Larabie's picture

Hi Christian. Thanks for showing up and please disregard what I said. We all got trolled on this thread. Me of all people should have picked up on it.

kevintheophile's picture

Christian, no use to persuade me to recognise that I'm very wrong and accept the reality. Ubuntu failed just a bit. If Mark won't follow my suggestion and won't want to remove the non-free or non-open source fonts from Ubuntu, the problem is his and Ubuntu.

@Ray Larabie, if Mark won't follow my suggestion, the problem will be his and from Ubuntu, and get unpleased and don't be glad because the Linux users will use your fonts to modify at FontForge. I hope they use your fonts and you get furious when you'll see your modified fonts used by users on their blogs.

If you'll see your font that was modified and used by an user on a non-English-speaking blog, principally Brazilian, Colombian or Italian. Will you prosecute him by having your font? Will you send an e-mail, writing in English to him if he doesn't speak or understand English? If you send an e-mail to him, in English, he'll think you're a spammer.

Don't be nevrous, because I'm testing and challenging you with these questions.

I'm very mature than you. I know what the users are doing. I know what happens with them. I know a lot the world of piracy.

Thank you for calling me troll. I'm honoured by your ciritcs. You all are trolls too.

cuttlefish's picture

Linux users who have FontForge can design their own fonts and release them under whatever license they like (though FF does facilitate including the SIL open font license in generated fonts). There is no need to modify and release other peoples fonts without authorization.

John Hudson's picture

Personally, I'm looking forward to the day when the only fonts available to self-styled open source fanatics and fundamentalists have क for k.

Ray Larabie's picture

You seem to think you're discussing important theories with some kind of corporate font machine. In reality, I'm just some guy with a computer who makes fonts all day. Some are free, some are not. Sometimes I make mistakes. For instance, contributing to this nonsensical thread.

There is one thing that does upset me, personally. There's no shortage of gift horse mouth lookers on the internet. Make something free and you're guaranteed to have someone bitch about it. I doubt that an average font designer who isn't known for free fonts has to deal with the amount of bullshit that I have to deal with.

If any students are reading this and considering making free fonts, be prepared to deal with interesting individuals like Kevin. People like this will email you, introduce themselves and tell you that everything you're doing is wrong. So often, I'll be working my ass off and there'll be another internet complainer, bitching about this and that. It's not exactly motivational. My prices are too low. My prices are too high. I don't support certain languages. My EULA should be open source.

I have to admit, these internet complainers get to me.

In conclusion, Kevin:

Stay the fuck away from me, motherfucker. Don't email me. Don't even fucking mention me on Typophile. You're succeeded in pissing me off. Congratulations. You can have a big laugh. You're a big revolutionary hero who has struck a blow against the big font corporations. You sat in from of your computer and changed the world.

And while we're on the subject: go fuck yourself.

quadibloc's picture

@John Hudson:
Personally, I'm looking forward to the day when the only fonts available to self-styled open source fanatics and fundamentalists have क for k.
Well, I'm not. Although I do disagree with the original poster's views, open-source fonts do serve a purpose, and I am glad that a few of them exist.
As I've noted, in general, most free Linux distributions don't make free closed-source software available. This is a serious issue in the area of device drivers. In the case of fonts, it is likely a significantly less pressing concern, although I think that the Ubuntu people have made the right decision.
However, I realize that you were no doubt just jesting as a reaction to the original poster's unfortunate style.

snow is nigh's picture

Kevin, you are a piece of shit. And dumb as well. So let me make put this in a simple way:

- the world is not like you think it is.
- bundled ubuntu software is not fully GPL and open source.
- you are a dumb-ass who can't think or listen.
- you will never have a smart girlfriend/boyfriend, if you don't change.
- Ray here will not takes legal measures against somebody modifying fonts bundled with ubuntu, never intended to do, just wanted to do the world something good. It is not his fault that his free fonts were bundled with Ubuntu without a GPL. You are fighting a war that does not exist. You do this because you have a boring life I assume. I know people like you, sitting at their parents place, not working or doing anything. Your life is the internet. There are no people giving you positive emotions. Get yourself help, talk with a therapist!
- as part of your therapy, you should avoid places like Typophile, which let you fall into an agression pattern (you feel forced to provoke, you feel happy about your rude comments and the answers), because this is your only source of emotional feedback. So please do your self a favor, stay away.

Arno Enslin's picture

When I have read “I won!” and “Wowww! I won!”, I already thought about posting this tip: Avoid discussions initiated by members named Jasontheophile, Justintheophile, Dustintheophile, Dennistheophile, Tylertheophile, Chantaltheophile, Mandytheophile, Sandytheophile, Cindytheophile, Nancytheophile.

dberlow's picture

trollmastereophile "Remember of the French lemme: Liberté, Fraternité et Égalité that the mnopolist empires viotaed!"

Yeah France! Then spend 200 years excluding blacks, Arabs, orientals, Jews and anyone not educated in the right schools from all high government and corporate positions. Great model, jack of all tirades.

Ray, I've never heard so upset, I'm sorry you pay attention to this nutrino. He represents no one worth dealing with and I'm fairly certain he lights his hair on fire and then types with his nose.

gaultney's picture

Ray - Sorry you're getting abuse from certain jerks and zealots in the open source community. Like most religious or dogmatic groups, the huge majority of the people there are reasonable, kind and helpful. But there are always a few that decide to be fanatical and misrepresent the group as a bunch of fundamentalist wackos. They're not worth your time.

Everyone - There are valid and attractive reasons to release a font as open source, but as we've seen here there are some people who heap abuse on designers instead of thanks. The best way to minimize that, and protect yourself, is to use the SIL Open Font License (OFL). That license is well-accepted, legally-reviewed and has significant protections for the designer. If you use the OFL then the target for abuse shifts from you to the authors and advocates of the OFL. We deal with the zealots so you don't have to.

Igor Freiberger's picture

For everyone: maybe some of you already noticed Kevin is actually Gustavo, formerly known as gusrejc1989, who already caused polemic with offensive posts in threads about font piracy and copyright violation. He is a 21-years-old guy living near Rio de Janeiro.

For Gustavo: I cannot understand why you came here, in a technical and collaborative forum, to treat anyone who disagree from you as an enemy. I seriously think you need psychiatric help before this behaviour cause more damage for yourself.

kevintheophile's picture

I laughed at you all. I love your offensive and insults comments. I love this topic and this forum. The typodesigners are very funny. But I ignored you all and I don't care what you criticised and told about me. I'll stop visiting this forum because I need to work, but don't be glad because don't think I'll disappear from here, soonly I'll come back to here in many months when this forum will be calm and will forget my topics and our offences and our hurts.

You accused me that I'm internet addicted. You're funny. Didn't you notice that I didn't visit this forum for many months? Didn't you know why? Because I was studying and working. You're funny by having accused me of Internet addicted, because you all are Internet addicted and addicted in Typophile too. Here's the hypocrisy. You always answered many topics everyday. It's funny.

Bye boring people!

Chris G's picture

God help us all if this guy and Uli ever end up in the same thread...

Thomas Phinney's picture

Ooh, please! Can we just let the two of them have some big argument? Nobody else contributing?

Sympathies to Ray: You sure as heck didn't deserve all this nonsense, and I'm sorry Kevin was able to goad you to the point of you losing it. Hang in there, old bean!


Theunis de Jong's picture

BAA Award for Best Title Graphics -- I could see it a hundred times and still love it. No amount of trolling can take that away from you, Ray!

Richard Fink's picture

Actually, far from "losing it", I think Ray's admonition was simply appropriate - no more, no less. No reason to hold it in if the guy's a schmuck. (Then again, I'm from Brooklyn, NY. Maybe my FU appropriateness threshold is comparatively low.)

"Seriously how many Ubuntu users are going to modify the fonts that come with the product?"
Well, me, for one.
Really, how many users are going to modify the fonts that come with Windows?
So why bother mentioning them in the Windows EULA?

In matters of rights, which copyright/licensing assumedly will expand or curtail, I don't see how the number of people who may or may not assert those rights is relevant.

Si_Daniels's picture

"Seriously how many Ubuntu users are going to modify the fonts that come with the product?"

Great, so now we know, it’s one 1 in 12,000,000.

We don't mention modification in the font section of the Windows EULA. We talk about real world activities like document embedding and downloading the fonts to printers.

Frank ADEBIAYE's picture

As a Linux user and open source enthuasiast, I find this debate raised by Kevin irrelevant. TTF/OTF formats are standard, source/matrix files in addition to these are great for open source scholars, but in real life ? Hmmm...

It's already hard to make type designers understand we need less restrictive licences in order to use typefaces for text and not just for branding ; if we discourage Ubuntu / Ray Larabie initiatives with such zealot criticism, then we're doomed.

We need to proceed step by step. First of all, the users, the readers, the writers, the designers and then, only then, we'll start byzantine debate in order to determine if vfb sources is more or less appropriate than fontforge sources. BTW, UFO is possibly a good compromise, it works with FontLab, FontLab, Glyphs and others type editors, I guess.

In that particular matter, the big deal is perhaps to convert the VFB of the Ubuntu fonts into UFO. Could we not do it peacefully without insulting people ?

There was a time type world was more civilized ; let's go to this, my fellow typographers :-)

Té Rowan's picture

Call me a bloony if you want to, but I think that the following YouTube vid is a good antidote for *theophile's psyche-damaging rhetoric:

Markus Wargh plays Sibelius' Finlandia on the organ in Luleå Cathedral.

Si_Daniels's picture

>There was a time type world was more civilized

No there wasn't.

Frank ADEBIAYE's picture

There was:

and printers used to be authorized to have a sword.

It was the early and noble ages of typography.

Tim Ahrens's picture

Practically speaking, what does “source” mean when we talk about “open source fonts”? Assuming I wanted to contribute an open source font, which format should I provide? Could it be FontLab vfb? That would be open source with a proprietary source format. UFO? Doesn't support TT instructions (the only reason why we need a source format) so that is not an option. Does it have to be Fontforge sfd? Then I would have to give up the freedom to use my font editor of choice in order to participate in the free software world. Hmmm, funny world it is.

dberlow's picture

>UFO? Doesn't support TT instructions


>No there wasn't.

You were not in the industry when technology was off topic, so I understand.

BlueStreak's picture

>You were not in the industry when technology was off topic, so I understand.

The good old days of civility when everything was "open source" except for the font name. One vendor could rip off and resell another vendor's Palatino as long as it was renamed as Palatina.

Syndicate content Syndicate content