On 10/29/2013 03:30 PM, S Page wrote:
Quim:
And if we want to specify any fonts in our works, they should be free.Uh, why? Mac users actually have Helvetica Neue, the nicest-looking font, Windows users have Georgia. The presence of these names in our CSS does nothing to hinder the cause of free fonts.
Yes, it does hinder the cause of free fonts. We won't help scratching the itch because in practice we will rely on a proprietary solution for our UX work targeting the majority of users. While not forcing anybody to use free fonts, our mockups, tests, reviews, screenshots and what not will all assume the happy coincidence that Helvetica Neue ("the most ubiquitous in advertising copy and logos") and Georgia (Microsoft Corporation) are everywhere.
Now compare with this hypothetical scenario: we actually bet on a set of optional free fonts, because we care about typography as much as we care about freedom. We use them as default in our mockups, tests, reviews, screenshots and what not. We serve them as web fonts, we bundle them in our apps and offline versions, we promote them to the users missing them in their systems. We take note of our own itches and user feedback, and we file bugs and enhancement requests upstream, or send/commission improvements. This way we contribute spreading free typography, just like we contribute spreading other areas of free knowledge, free culture and free software.
Removing them would be detrimental for most of our users.
Detrimental... they would still be able to access all our content and functionality without losing a single readable character, right? A lot less "detrimental" than not serving them conveniently mp3, mpeg, flash, Facebook/Twitter/Google login, and other proprietary options already installed in your average Mac / Windows desktop that we decided not to support.
If the above scenario to improve the MediaWiki/Wikimedia UX by improving free fonts is not exciting, or a priority, then at least we could be neutral and not promote actively any proprietary font either.
On 2013-10-29 4:47 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
On 10/29/2013 03:30 PM, S Page wrote:
Removing them would be detrimental for most of our users.
Detrimental... they would still be able to access all our content and functionality without losing a single readable character, right? A lot less "detrimental" than not serving them conveniently mp3, mpeg, flash, Facebook/Twitter/Google login, and other proprietary options already installed in your average Mac / Windows desktop that we decided not to support.
To be fair I'd like to point out that mp3 and mpeg require WMF to encode and serve freely licensed content in patented formats (which also have some legal issues). Flash requires WMF to author and serve stuff directly in a proprietary format. And Facebook/Twitter/Google login require WMF sites to be connected server-side to and dependent on proprietary 3rd party websites.
Proprietary fonts are copyrighted (dubiously though) not patented. WMF is not serving any 3rd party data that is proprietary or not openly licensed. And the openly licensed content itself is still served in a single open non-proprietary format to everyone. The only place open vs. non-free comes into account is on the reader's own computer. Which is very different from the other situations listed where open vs. non-free is on WMF's end.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
Proprietary fonts are copyrighted (dubiously though) not patented.
Actually this is quite complicated. In the U.S., Japan, and some other countries, typefaces cannot be copyrighted. However, specific font implementations of typefaces can. So for, example, someone could release a free license Helvetica within the U.S. and it would not infringe any copyrights (within the U.S.). Typefaces can be protected by design patents and trademarks within the U.S., however.
Regarding Nimbus Sans: Does anyone know how I can get this font without installing all of Ghostscript?
Ryan Kaldari
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.comwrote:
On 2013-10-29 4:47 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
On 10/29/2013 03:30 PM, S Page wrote:
Removing them would be detrimental for most of our users.
Detrimental... they would still be able to access all our content and functionality without losing a single readable character, right? A lot less "detrimental" than not serving them conveniently mp3, mpeg, flash, Facebook/Twitter/Google login, and other proprietary options already installed in your average Mac / Windows desktop that we decided not to support.
To be fair I'd like to point out that mp3 and mpeg require WMF to encode and serve freely licensed content in patented formats (which also have some legal issues). Flash requires WMF to author and serve stuff directly in a proprietary format. And Facebook/Twitter/Google login require WMF sites to be connected server-side to and dependent on proprietary 3rd party websites.
Proprietary fonts are copyrighted (dubiously though) not patented. WMF is not serving any 3rd party data that is proprietary or not openly licensed. And the openly licensed content itself is still served in a single open non-proprietary format to everyone. The only place open vs. non-free comes into account is on the reader's own computer. Which is very different from the other situations listed where open vs. non-free is on WMF's end.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org