On 02/15/2014 09:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that
I still miss an answer to
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/2013-December/001285.html
I don't want to repeat the points again, but let me summarize the root of all the arguments against the specification of proprietary fonts:
Fonts are software, fonts are creative works. As a matter of principle, Wikimedia doesn't use or promote proprietary software and proprietary creative works for our sites. There should be a very good reason to propose an exception to this principle.
Those proposing the typography change are putting a lot of effort and the best of their intentions in offering the best solution for the branches and leaves of this project. However, what is being questioned here is the root, Wikimedia selecting explicitly proprietary fonts that will become "a core visual element of Wikipedia's language." [1]
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh#Goals