Dyslexie - a font for people with dyslexia
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Figured I'd post here since Trisquel is all about accessibility :)
http://magazine.good.is/infographics/dyslexie-christian-boer
Should we use only free-as-in-freedom fonts? Because Dyslexie seems to be proprietary. But I don't remember if fonts are like software and should be free, or it's rather like art and there's no problem at using it.
I am a translator!
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/are-fonts-software
I think fonts are software. Fonts are not programs but indeed they are software. Non free software of any kind is a bad thing. Hence dyslexie fonts (although an excellent and useful thing for many people affected by dyslexia) are a bad thing.
A better alternative can be found here -> https://opendyslexic.org/
> "Fonts are not programs but indeed they are software"
Why? Can you elaborate on this? I just want enough reasons before taking a strong decision like not using any proprietary font ever again.
Because they aim at doing your work (e.g., writing documents), not at being admired like paintings.
No, you use a text editor to write documents, the text editor should be free because it's software and a tool, the font just gives a certain look to your document. Also, the font it's just a file made by a type designers, who is obviously an artist and not a programmer. So why should he liberate his work? Why is his work contrary to ethics if it's not in a free license?
On https://trisquel.info/en/forum/are-fonts-software you said that fonts are software because they are "immaterial objects that help the user achieve some work" and therefore the four freedoms are needed, but if that's true, then how is the art of a video game different to a font? The models, music, textures are used in combination with source code to create a video game, and yet the FSF don't really care about the art of the video game, only the source code and the manuals of the software. Am I correct?
The font of the document I edit must be free because it is my work and I deserve the freedom to modify that font if I want to. When playing a video game, you do not "use" the non-functional data. You do not achieve any work *with* it. You could want to achieve a derivative work *from* it but that is another issue. It is not about "using".
The interpretation of fonts being software comes from U.S. courts, which decided that font "programs" can be copyrighted (font faces themselves are not subject to copyright in the U.S.). I'm not all that familiar with the way fonts are defined in e.g. TTF files, so I have no opinion on whether or not they're truly "programs" or "software".
EDIT: But to be clear, I agree that fonts need to be libre. Fonts are, after all, utilitarian in nature. Most fonts do the same job and just look different, but that doesn't excuse those that don't grant you freedom to use them as you wish (e.g. most of the well-known fonts).
Now this two posts are starting to sound more elaborate to the point of enabling me at convening other people too.
> "The font of the document I edit must be free because it is my work and I deserve the freedom to modify that font if I want to."
Okay, I suppose to make your document look exactly like you wanted. Sounds concise enough. But this would be just freedom 1. What about the other freedoms? Especially freedoms 2 and 3. And if you can elaborate on why we really need this two freedoms on fonts. What business model would you suggest to those who sell fonts?
As for the difference between video game art and fonts. It's clear enough to me now, and I agree to that difference that you point out.
> "The interpretation of fonts being software comes from U.S. courts, which decided that font "programs" can be copyrighted (font faces themselves are not subject to copyright in the U.S.). I'm not all that familiar with the way fonts are defined in e.g. TTF files, so I have no opinion on whether or not they're truly "programs" or "software"."
Okay... I'll twist my mind for a moment and imagine that there's such thing like font "programs" (I guess you have to be that crazy to be a lawyer), also. Let's assume that TTF files is software. Even so, I still need to ask. Are all font files in general software? If they happen to be. Are music files, image files, book files, web pages in html... software too?
The courts ruled that fonts are programs because they're more complex than mere image files (the decade before that ruling, courts had ruled that bitmap fonts, composed only of simple images, were not subject to copyright).
I'm aware that font files include some kind of vector graphics, but looking at the Wikipedia article for TTFs suggests to me there are some more complex components, hence why I'm not sure if I agree.
What about the other freedoms? Especially freedoms 2 and 3.
Fonts being utilitarian, all four freedoms must apply. Notice that I also consider that freedom 2 should always be granted, whatever the nature of the work (e.g., artistic). Like rms says, "for a fundamentally ethic reason, to be a good member of your community".
What business model would you suggest to those who sell fonts?
Crowd-funding looks like a good option. But even if there was no way to make money out of font design, the user deserves all four freedoms. Making money is no justification: robbing makes money too. And it is unethical too.
> "I'm aware that font files include some kind of vector graphics, but looking at the Wikipedia article for TTFs suggests to me there are some more complex components, hence why I'm not sure if I agree."
So we don't know if fonts are software in general? That's okay, being software is not the only reason you could have to demand all four freedoms, as long as it's useful for practical use.
> "Fonts being utilitarian, all four freedoms must apply."
I asked about this to a friend of mine who is very wise in my opinion, and he said that fonts are for practical use too, and even though he didn't sound 100% sure. When I think about it, fonts shouldn't be covered by copyright. So I would say that they should be in public domain. But just having four freedoms is okay for me.
> "I also consider that freedom 2 should always be granted, whatever the nature of the work (e.g., artistic). Like rms says, "for a fundamentally ethic reason, to be a good member of your community".
Could you provide some source on this? Like an article or a talk, not that I don't believe on that, just want to read more in depth about this.
> "Crowd-funding looks like a good option. But even if there was no way to make money out of font design, the user deserves all four freedoms. Making money is no justification: robbing makes money too. And it is unethical too."
I'm still curious on this one, not applied to fonts because I made my mind and they shouldn't be covered by copyright. But to other works like games and music, for which we need more ethical ways of earning money. But we should leave that for another thread.
When I think about it, fonts shouldn't be covered by copyright.
If I were able (an willing) to design a font, I would like it to be under a copyleft license so that improvements to the font would be free as well. Not the documents written with the font though (because not all documents need or even should to be freely modifiable). See the GNU FreeFont license for an example of such a license: https://www.gnu.org/software/freefont/license.html
Could you provide some source on this?
Stallman basically tells that whenever he presents the reason for freedom 2. He does so in almost all his long talks. However, if you are interested in his views on whether some (or all) the four freedoms should extend to other immaterial works, then you should more specifically watch his talk entitled "Copyright vs. Community". Some recordings here: https://audio-video.gnu.org/video/
In this talk, rms presents as well a proposal to fund the Arts and yet grant freedom 2 to the reader/listener/viewer/etc.
> "If I were able (an willing) to design a font, I would like it to be under a copyleft license so that improvements to the font would be free as well."
But making fonts uncopyrightable wouldn't be better? Even if someone made a derivate of some font, his work wouldn't be covered by copyright and therefore free. Isn't?
> "Not the documents written with the font though (because not all documents need or even should to be freely modifiable)."
Because documents written with a certain work should make that document a derivate work of the font in the first place. Don't you think?
> "Stallman basically tells that whenever he presents the reason for freedom 2. He does so in almost all his long talks. However, if you are interested in his views on whether some (or all) the four freedoms should extend to other immaterial works, then you should more specifically watch his talk entitled "Copyright vs. Community". Some recordings here: https://audio-video.gnu.org/video/"
Thanks you! Luckily I have time this weekend, so I'll watch that and make another thread if I have questions.
For the time being I think is safe to say that we should use only free-as-in-freedom fonts, whether they are software or not.
But making fonts uncopyrightable wouldn't be better?
That would be good too. But that is up to the legislator and, currently, a font is copyrightable.
Because documents written with a certain work should make that document a derivate work of the font in the first place. Don't you think?
That is the whole point of the exception GNU FreeFont's authors add to the GNU GPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/software/freefont/license.html
> "That is the whole point of the exception GNU FreeFont's authors add to the GNU GPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/software/freefont/license.html"
I don't understand why they need that exception. You mean that otherwise my work would be under the GPL too?
If the font were under the plain GNU GPL (no exception), then any document using it would have to be distributed under the GNU GPL.
wow, I though copyright holders could enforce his license terms only on "derivate works". And as far a I know, no font being used in a document make that document a derivate work. Unless the font was embedded with the document.
Yeah, sorry, I forgot to check whether it was free. This OpenDislexic font looks excellent though!
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires