IIRC, many people's beef with Roboto was that it didn't look good in print, so don't expect flowers and unicorns. As for the licence, it's the Apache licence, version 2.0, and as far as I can tell, it does not limit what you can use it for. But how the Dis I'm gunna arrange it for a symphonic orchestra and two death metal bands, I'm yet to figure out.

does Apache 2.0 also allow reselling a modification?

Apparently it does (emphasis is mine):

3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

Taken from: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Thank you for your answers. I will make test for sure ;-)

Is there a list of fonts with an Apache license?
A better question is: "Is there some big list of fonts available under FOSS licenses, with download links and some explanation of the limitations of said licenses as they pertain to redistribution and usage?"

No, no, just the stuff I can add Armenian to and sell. As far as I can tell only the Apache license (does the version matter?) would allow that.

We are quickly approaching a point where there is no important difference between 'screen' and 'print'

It sure seems like that. But don't believe the hype.

hhp

You could start with that thread, of course.

While the Open Font License does not permit selling the licensed materiel as an independent product, it does explicitly permit using the materiel to add value. Most other FOSS licences allow for selling the licensed materiel, implicitly or explicitly.

http://www.openfontlibrary.org/

The Open Font Library would seem to be a good clearinghouse for this sort of information. Unfortunately it doesn't have a decent list for Apache. Why people aren't contributing to this is a topic in itself.

Like Reynir, who recently did many massive text dumps here* - why is he suddenly so mum?

Maybe I'm missing something, but when I look at the longs lists provided by Reynir on "that thread," *license* is included. Do you mean you don't want to be bothered searching the thread, or that the information isn't available there?

Hmm./ Apparently ASF is one acronym for Apache, maybe there are others? Anybody help, here?

I did find this list

http://www.google.com/webfonts/attribution

Search for "Apache" -- there are some

Naw, I just haven't done much work on the lists lately. Got other interests that need some time, too.

http://googlefontdirectory.googlecode.com/hg/apache/ -- Direct route to GoogleFonts' Mercurial base, Apache licence section.

Ain't got a flippin' idea. OFL and GPL with font embedding exception are by far the most popular choice. Celeb syndrome? (Famous because they're famous.) Possibly. Effin sleep phase unlocks... only thing I dislike about yule.

I guess that depends on the core objective(s) of a given supporter of libre fonts - there's a whole spectrum of agendas crawling around in there. :-) There is however a strong undercurrent of "social justice" in the libre movement (its main redeeming quality as far as I'm concerned) and if you consider that generally minority scripts enjoy much higher quality fonts when a professional decides it's profitable (or at least not a total loss :-) to make some, the Apache license actually has an advantage. For example not having to make a complete high-quality Latin companion is a huge deal to a designer of Armenian fonts.

About "moving" from one licensing model to another: considering this is all "open", the previous incarnation can't go away, right? Or do I have to move quickly? :-)

hhp

If you make a proprietary font for a minority script, that's working against the social justice aims of the libre movement.

I don't think so, because not having any (or very few) good fonts is more socially unjust than having (more) good proprietary ones. Remember, social justice is more about the reader than the designer; social justice says: the designer not wanting to give up money should not harm the reader.

BTW the situation for minority scripts is inherently different than for Latin (even though it's still true that there can never be enough typestlyes).

the designers of the small number of Apache fonts asked to move to OFL.

When they move, does the previous Apache version become illegal, or simply harder to find?

hhp

social justice says: the designer not wanting to give up money should not harm the reader

Social justice says to me, the user of digital tools ought to have freedom to decide how the tools they use work. They use their tools to serve their users better. A proprietary tool may offer convenient features but the overall society is worse off due to its restrictions.

I was paid to make Arasan, but it's given away for free

But was it libre? If its zero price isn't what makes it socially just or unjust, to me.

When they move, does the previous Apache version become illegal, or simply harder to find?

Legally, the latter - a libre license doesn't expire or terminate unless you breach the terms of the license - but the font designers wish that the fonts be treated as OFL ought to be respected, don't you think? :)

As I recall, licence changes are not usually retroactive. Also, you could always ask the original author if (s)he's OK with you forking an Apache-licensed branch off whatever thang you like.

My views on this didn't change, but I note that GWF offers designers a choice of Apache or OFL, so you may have email from me offering you that choice :)

The philosophical difference between Apache and OFL is really the difference between BSD and GNU, which you can read about extensively elsewhere :)

They use their tools to serve their users better. / I think this is the weak link in your logic.

I'm operating on a longer time scale than everyone else; I think in terms of decades.

Dave, the reason I asked about the timing is that most Apache fonts are relatively old, supporting your view that designers no longer like it. The big exception Roboto. I wonder why (not a rhetorical question).

you may have email from me offering you that choice

Touché!

I think in terms of decades.

I'm Armenian - a decade is a morning stretch. :-)

Jens, well expressed.
Regret is a very educational emotion.

And thank you so much for that zip!
Are there many more non-Google Apache fonts? BTW currently I would like to find all the monospaced Apache fonts.

But about getting a designer to offer a more strict license:
- If it's exactly the same font as is available more freely, would that really work out? Considering -as we seem to agree- that this stuff is not retroactive (more below).
- If the more free license does not allow something, is the original designer nonetheless allowed to over-ride that? That would actually be an incentive to release an OFL font: get people hooked on your design, then make money on commissioned mods.

Two more questions for Dave:
- If the designer of a free/libre font changes his mind, do you think people should respect that decision and stop using the free/libre version?
- Can you cite actual cases of an Apache font being re-released under a stricter license?

hhp

Wait, I just realized that Abattis is Dave Crossland. All this time, and I never knew? Hi Dave.

With regards to re-licensing, you can always go more free, but you cannot go less free. Once you've licensed something as BSD, for instance, you can't revoke that and make it GPL. You can fork it, or dual license it, or stop distributing it, but you cannot prevent someone else from redistributing or modifying their copy under the original license.

I don't know the specifics of the Apache license, but with MIT/BSD, you're explicitly allowed to re-license it however you want, provided you keep the original copyright stuff intact, but that only covers whatever copy you are distributing, not the originals.

This licensing stuff sucks.

On license changes, generally, remember

http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/legal/additional_licenses.html

I sure am glad that most of our Monotype/Linotype fonts were licensed long ago, under the (old) Adobe license. I'd hate to have to stand up in court & explain why I fixed the gefuched things in many of those fonts...

Hrant, it isnt 'more free' since it leads to more non-free fonts. No? :)

Hey, the font designers released their stuff under the Apache licence, so that once was their wish too.

You may recall that a long time ago GWF offered the ability to donate money to font designers. The OFL forbids 'selling the font by itself' and so I arranged a deal with a few designers to use Apache (the only other license (modulo the UFL for Ubuntu fonts which is an anomaly) so that GWF could have the option to sell their fonts as fonts; it would probably been a 'pay what you wish before downloading' thing.

That's experiment is now long gone, so the designers want to switch to OFL.

I have a feeling that there are lots of type designers who later regret a contract they signed or a licence they gave out to anyone. But hey, so what. Everybody should consider the consequences of their action at the right time.

Indeed. ;)

E.g. I remember a tweet from some Google web font designer who wasn't pleased his font now was available in Google docs,

Hmm, I seem to have missed that one. I know Toshi Omagari tweeted surprise about Tangerine appearing in Adobe Edge Web Fonts, but I explained things and he was happy.

or perhaps you heard Erik Spiekermann mention he can't get out of his contract for ITC Officina.

No, I'm not familiar with this. Whats the story? :)

most Apache fonts are relatively old, supporting your view that designers no longer like it.

They always preferred OFL.

The big exception Roboto. I wonder why (not a rhetorical question).

Everything in AOSP is Apache, modulo the Linux kernel which is an anomaly.

Are there many more non-Google Apache fonts?

http://code.google.com/p/noto is coming along.

If the more free license does not allow something, is the original designer nonetheless allowed to over-ride that? That would actually be an incentive to release an OFL font: get people hooked on your design, then make money on commissioned mods.

Yes, the original designer OWNS the rights and so can distribute copies under lots of different licenses. If you receive a copy, you are bound by the terms under which you received it; but those terms don't bind the copyright holder.

And yes, some designers who release OFL fonts are doing so as 'loss leaders' for proprietary versions of the same fonts which are more complete - Ale Paul, for example - but Sorkin Type Co is running a better model I think; they are making the WEB fonts libre, and PRINT versions proprietary, so that the two are actually separate but intwined projects. That way, there isn't tension between community, libre progress and proprietary development.

If the designer of a free/libre font changes his mind, do you think people should respect that decision and stop using the free/libre version?

I want people to participate in libre culture because they genuinely think its a good idea. It seems a little mean to not respect their wishes.

Can you cite actual cases of an Apache font being re-released under a stricter license?

No. I can cite one case of an experienced type designer that wanted to rework a libre font, who ended up starting from scratch so the original license didn't apply anyway : http://www.anatoletype.net/fonts/dejarip

Wait, I just realized that Abattis is Dave Crossland. All this time, and I never knew? Hi Dave.

Haha! Hi Dan :-)

With regards to re-licensing, you can always go more free, but you cannot go less free. Once you've licensed something as BSD, for instance, you can't revoke that and make it GPL.

I'm quite sure you can take a BSD work as a piece of a larger work and make that overall work GPL, or proprietary.

You can fork it, or dual license it, or stop distributing it, but you cannot prevent someone else from redistributing or modifying their copy under the original license.

Not their copy, no, but another copy they get from you.

I don't know the specifics of the Apache license, but with MIT/BSD, you're explicitly allowed to re-license it however you want

Kinda. You can't 'relicense' it. You can distribute it under that license, which allows distributing it with additional restrictions. The GPL is more free because users can't be put under additional restrictions.

This licensing stuff sucks.

:)

Also, let's get a bit down-to-earth here: this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center
seems to be the only entity that sues people who violate an "open"-flavor font license,

The FSF have been doing this for decades, and Haralde Welte has been doing his own GPL activism at http://gpl-violations.org

You don't hear about this much because the FSF's aim is software freedom through GPL compliance, not profits from lawsuits, so they quietly behind the scenes say, you could be sued for millions of dollars of copyright infringement, but we just want you to comply with the license which costs nothing. So they do that, instead.

their last action was over three years ago. Have people been behaving? That would be a first... Or maybe the SFLC ran out of cash.

By the look of it the last time I dropped by their office on Broadway in Manhatten, SFLC is financially buoyant. Think quiet settlements.

if -directly- making money is the only way a given individual would feel free taking part in open software, that ends up helping others too.

I have difficultly making sense out of this. In libre culture, making money is fine, selling copies is fine, but proprietary licensing is not fine. You seem to assert you can't make money with libre fonts. This isn't true.

if the only way a given person can feel free enough to make a libre font is to make money on-the-spot (specifically, by selling a modified Apache font)

Well, is that modified Apache font a libre font or is it not?

I'm still confused about your position Hrant :) You say,

it's socially just when the end-users (readers) benefit via the tool user (graphic designer) paying money instead of the tool maker (type designer) losing time.

I have refuted your assertion that libre fonts require their makers to spent unpaid time on them, and you agreed -

It's certainly possible to make money with libre fonts

- so, is it MORE socially just when the end-users (readers) benefit when the tool user (graphic designer) has equitable relationship with the tool maker (type designer) and the tool maker still got paid for their time?