Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:52 PM, MZMcBride
There's an open question in my mind as to
what constitutes a "non-free
In this context, I mean "non-free" in the context of libre rather than
Right. The "libre" part is what I consider a legal issue, though I think I
understand more clearly now that you're talking about technical policy
There are a number of fonts that can be downloaded for
but are under terms along the lines of a CC -NC or -ND license, and
there are more that are distributed with various popular operating
systems so many people already have them for "free" in the loosest
sense. I'm not counting these as free here.
Thank you for clarifying this point. It might be helpful to have a list of
gratis/libre fonts and a list of gratis/non-libre fonts, if such lists
don't exist already.
As far as I know, MediaWiki (core) has historically preferred to specify
nothing more than sans-serif. There now seems to be a trend away from this.
is a citation for my earlier claim that Wikimedia prefers free to
non-free. Nemo_bis pointed me toward this related discussion as well: