<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Jonathan,<br>
<br>
If the SignWriting Symbols were under the OFL, then any application
Open or Closed could use those symbols. Software is not a derivative
of the symbols. Software uses the symbols. Under the OFL, a
commercial product is allowed to include the OFL fonts as a part of the
software package.<br>
<br>
A derivative of the SignWriting Symbols would still be a set of
symbols. Maybe someone will clean up the white palms in our current
IMWA. Or maybe someone would create a half sized symbol set. These
new symbol sets would need to be released under the OFL.<br>
<br>
According to the OFL, it is not permitted to sell the fonts by
themselves. It is also not permitted to modify the fonts and sell the
modified fonts.<br>
<br>
-Steve<br>
<br>
<br>
Jonathan wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:465C9512.3080701@yahoo.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Our whole programs are based on the SignWriting
Symbols. The font software is the program. Which according to this
would have to be distributed under OFL. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid2A8E1620-9863-4701-98B0-2460A3A32684@mac.com"
type="cite">Do you know of another license that you would prefer? Are
there other licenses that are better known by programmers or better
suited for the ISWA? <br>
</blockquote>
No I don't<br>
<blockquote cite="mid2A8E1620-9863-4701-98B0-2460A3A32684@mac.com"
type="cite">On May 27, 2007, at 11:25 AM, GerardM wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">To be clear, Valerie is categorically clear
that the SignWriting symbols need to remain as freely available as they
have always been. Practically nothing is to change. It is just that
clarification of these things will take away the suspicion that some
people have when this issue is not addressed. <br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Gerard,<br>
Do you feel that I understand the part about derivative works? Or
am I missing something? Because this would be a change as to how
things are now.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1180353086.7555.7.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">SIL Open Font License
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL">http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL</a>
Our question to programmers who use SignWriting...
How do you feel about the OFL License?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
I am not particularly comfortable with it for the above mentioned
reasons. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid1180353086.7555.7.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If the SignWriting symbols are placed under the OFL License, will you
feel free to use the symbols for your programming? That is what
matters to me.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Val, <br>
I much prefer the your word that I can use SignWriting and the
PNG's as freely as you have mentioned several times here on the list.
I feel that the OFL would be taking away from those freedoms. I would
much prefer you just posted a statement on your web site, much like the
one you already have, stating what can (or even can't) be done with
SignWriting and the png files and other resources.<br>
But I am sure that anybody that is developing Open Source under
FLOSS would prefer the OFL.<br>
<br>
Sandy Fleming wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid1180353086.7555.7.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm not sure about this.
The site doesn't seem to define what it means by a "font". So far we
have Val's PNG symbols and Machado's SVG symbols. Do either of these
count as a font? It would seem to me that the PNG would come under som
sort of images license and the the SVGs under some sort of software
license.
In the "Working Model" diagram, the site talks about "Other software
product bundled for specific languages/scripts", but even so, what we
have so far handles PNGs and SVGs, not fonts.
Sandy
</pre>
</blockquote>
I would have a hard time considering the PNG or SVGs as a font. Not
unless they were coupled with a rendered, without which they are just
graphics.<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<div class="moz-signature">
<address><br>
Valerie Sutton wrote:
</address>
<blockquote cite="mid37B37A87-7F85-44D2-A904-F2E2D668900B@mac.com"
type="cite">SignWriting List <br>
May 28, 2007 <br>
<br>
Hello Sandy and Everyone - <br>
<br>
Sandy...Thank you for your response below. Your reaction was the same
as mine... SignWriting is not a font. It is an alphabet. Gerard told me
it was hard to find a license already written that fits SignWriting
exactly. <br>
<br>
For those list members reading this message and wondering what we are
talking about.....A font is more typography...like different typefaces.
We can have many different typeface designs in SignWriting symbols just
as we can have many different typeface designs in the Roman Alphabet.
Helvetica and Geneva fonts are not different alphabets. They are the
same alphabet in different typography designs, placed on a font which
can then be licensed under the OFL (I guess).... <br>
<br>
And even though it is true that the symbols I am putting together for
the ISWA are PNGs (at the moment) and later will become SVG, the PNGs
and SVG versions of the symbols are not SignWriting either...at least
what I had understood from people was that they wanted a license to use
the SignWriting alphabet in general...no matter what the device used to
write with... <br>
<br>
So I wonder...Can we write our own license? I could draft a Free
SignWriting License, where I explain in detail what SignWriting is, and
specify what people can and cannot do...which will be open, I assure
you ;-)) <br>
</blockquote>
I am for writing our own license. Though as Gerard mentioned further
down, it might not be taken very well by the Open Source community
because it probably won't conform to their standards as "Free" as they
understand it. That all derived works remain under the same license.
As I understand it, the Open Source community gets it's funds from
technical support. Which is to their advantage to always have the
programs distributed with the source code so that they can give better
tech support and write patches. To not make the source code of
programs public and let anybody derive from a derived work is against
their philosophy.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid37B37A87-7F85-44D2-A904-F2E2D668900B@mac.com"
type="cite"> <br>
Are we allowed to create our own license? It would encompass free use
of SignWriting PNGs, SVGs, the Sutton Fonts, SignWriter DOS and Java
source code, writing by hand, free downloading of photos and documents
on the SignWriting-related web sites, and permission to publish using
SignWriting. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid37B37A87-7F85-44D2-A904-F2E2D668900B@mac.com"
type="cite"> <br>
I could write a first draft of this Free SignWriting License, and post
it to the SW List for feedback... <br>
<br>
What do you think? Val ;-) <br>
</blockquote>
I like the idea</div>
<br>
<br>
Steve Slevinski wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid465AFAB0.2040408@signpuddle.net" type="cite">Hi
Val, <br>
<br>
Valerie Sutton wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
When they say font, they do not mean TrueType specifically, but instead
it is a more general term for font, and so our ISWA could be licensed
under the OFL, whether it is PNG or SVG or whatever format...Have I
understood that correctly? <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Yes. That is my understanding as well. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">But your concern at the end of your message
also concerns me...If we cannot license with a second license, does
that mean if we have new software that uses the ISWA, and that software
has another kind of license too, can the OFL be used inside that second
license?;-)) <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Don't worry about this. The OFL is only concerned with the font.
Software that uses the font can be under any license. <br>
</blockquote>
The OFL web page does talk about source code. But it might be only be
referring to the guide lines from other FLOSS licenses. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid465AFAB0.2040408@signpuddle.net" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">I was thinking I could draft a Free
SignWriting License, where I explain in detail what SignWriting is, and
specify what people can and cannot do...which will be open, I assure
you ;-)) <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
It would probably be a good idea. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The Free SignWriting License could
encompass
free use of SignWriting graphics, PNGs, SVGs, the Sutton Fonts,
SignWriter DOS and Java source code, writing by hand, free downloading
of photos and documents on the SignWriting-related web sites, and
permission to publish using SignWriting. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Yes and no. I think the Free SignWriting License should only include
the SignWriting ideas and the SignWriting alphabet. Adding specifics
for fonts, software, images, and everything else will just complicate
matters. Besides, a license is different than what is released under
the license. <br>
</blockquote>
I think that if the same rules and regulations are to apply to
everything then one license should suffice for everything. But if not
then leave out on this round what it doesn't apply to. The license
those when there is more time.<br>
<br>
Valerie Sutton wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid6663049A-A847-4DE0-B66C-2041F58A1F52@mac.com"
type="cite">SignWriting List <br>
May 28, 2007 <br>
<br>
Hello Steve, Sandy, Gerard and everyone - <br>
Thank you for these excellent points below...they are well-taken! <br>
<br>
You can see why I never created a license before...it was easier to say
nothing than to stipulate, because when you stipulate, there will
always be someone who feels frightened or limited by the license...just
the very word "license" brings up the idea of restrictions. <br>
<br>
So the point of the Free SignWriting License would be to calm
everyone's fears and worries...more like a personal message from me,
rather than a legal document. We could refer people to that web page
whenever someone writes to ask... <br>
</blockquote>
I agree.
<blockquote cite="mid6663049A-A847-4DE0-B66C-2041F58A1F52@mac.com"
type="cite"><br>
If I write the Free SignWriting License with all of your help, feedback
and approval...then we should dispel some of this I hope! Plus combine
that with the OFL License and other possible Licenses...and this issue
will be resolved I hope! <br>
</blockquote>
The Free SignWriting License is a good idea. You might have a hard time
combining it with the OFL as it isn't as "Free" as your "Free".<br>
<br>
<br>
Sandy Fleming wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid1180377770.7590.21.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Val,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So the point of the Free SignWriting License would be to calm
everyone's fears and worries...more like a personal message from me,
rather than a legal document. We could refer people to that web page
whenever someone writes to ask...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Don't forget that in order to preserve openness and freedom, you have to
stop other people from closing it. There are a lot of legal battles in
the software industry due to companies simply noticing that something
isn't licensed (or it is licensed but they try to pretend that they
thought of it first), then taking a copy of it and copyrighting it for
themselves.
Outside of software, you may remember how in the past few years a
company developed speed cameras that worked by averaging a car's speed
over a certain stretch of road. The company that developed it didn't
patent it because they didn't believe that patents were a good thing. A
Canadian lawyer spotted this and opened a patent on it for himself, even
though he hadn't done a stroke of work on it! This led to the
introduction of averaging speed cameras being delayed for months while
the legal problems were sorted out.
This is the sort of thing the license has to prevent. It needs to say,
in effect, that "You can copy this and change it in any way you want,
but you have to issue your version under the same open license." This
prevents anyone from closing the license and making SignWriting
_theirs_.
</pre>
</blockquote>
As long a SignWriting is open and free they will be only closing their
own derived version. Everybody can continue using the original
freely. The speed camera issue is different, the lawyer patented on
the original idea not on a derived idea. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid1180377770.7590.21.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think we need to be clear that SignWriting isn't a font. For example,
the ISWA pngs and Machado's SVGs look quite different on the page and to
my mind this makes them two different fonts. If Val and Machado both
issue these under an open license, does this stop someone from issuing
their own SignWriting fonts, some prettier, some more practical, some
just bizarre in a fun way, and then copyrighting them so they can make
money out of them? I think this should be allowed. As in the oral world,
we can have a million SignWriting fonts, some open, some closed, some
free, some expensive, and some that nobody cares about :)
Sandy
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1180387745.7590.63.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Gerard,
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 23:07 +0200, GerardM wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hoi,
There is a clear distinction between the rights of a copyright holder
and the rights of a licensee.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----></pre>
</blockquote>
Could the copyright holder put OFL license on a font for those who
prefer FLOSS and another license for those who prefer it to be more
open?<br>
<br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>