www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What constitutes a source release?
Date Thu, 02 May 2013 20:00:34 GMT

On May 2, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> We may very well have to look at each specific font to determine what
> the "preferred form for making modifications" would be.

FYI, I downloaded the Ubuntu font source (ubuntu-font-family-sources_0.80.orig.tar.gz) from
http://font.ubuntu.com/resources/

The build process is described in the file sources/SOURCES.txt. The "build" process requires
 tools such as:

  http://www.microsoft.com/typography/tools/vtt.aspx
  http://www.microsoft.com/typography/tools/tools.aspx
  http://www.fontlab.com/font-editor/fontlab-studio/

As far as I can tell (and this is all new to me), the files that are used in building the
final Ubuntu fonts are not contained within the binary distribution of the fonts. The binary
distribution does not contain the "source" (e.g. *.vfb, *-hinting.ttf, and a .cfg file) which
is used for producing the ubuntu fonts. AFAIK, this doesn't mean you couldn't use the ubuntu
font family to produce a new font. But does not appear to be the preferred form…

My personal opinion, the exposure seems minimal, here. And I tend to think of these files
like I might treat other media files (e.g. a .gif file produced by a paint application). 

--kevan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message