[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Thread Index]

RE: [XaraXtreme-dev] Substituted fonts and Bug 1057

> --On 22 May 2006 14:26 +0100 Charles Moir <CharlesM@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That license would appear to be very broad and would appear 
> to let us 
> > provide the fonts (as long as it's not for any commercial 
> product). To quote from the MS Website:
> That wasn't the way I read it it. Quite the opposite.
> Firstly, it will clearly prevent you from providing the fonts 
> if you are ever planning to provide a commercial version of 
> LX (on whatever platform) even if that is just a version on 
> CD with support, as the fonts "enhance"
> it. The end of EULA clause 1 specifically prohibits this.

Oh I never envisaged that we'd actually bundle them, just do what all
the other Linux packages do, provide a link to the download. So the user
would click a 'Get Microsoft fonts' and it would then start the download
and extraction / install of the fonts (from the original MS .exe)


It's pretty clear reading various threads about this, that the fonts are
available and it's perfectly legal for Linux users to download and use.
Microsoft can't and it appears do not even want to withdraw the font
license they provided with the core fonts.  Apple has a license to
include them on the Mac, even after the removal of IE from OSX.

> So not only can Xara not distribute them, but the users can't 
> download them themselves (as MS have removed them).

Yes they can. They can download them from any website. To quote MS:
"You may only redistribute the fonts in their original form (.exe or
.sit.hqx) and with their original file name from your Web site or
intranet site."

> I think we should avoid relying on these fonts at all. My 
> view is that the LX default templates should use Nimbus (or 
> something else commonly installed with the same metrics)

The trouble is these alternative fonts are really crap. It's widely
acknowledged in typography circles that the MS core fonts are some of
the best designed and hinted fonts that have ever existed, especially
for screen use. I mean even under Freetype they appear markedly superior
to other clone versions I've looked at.

And given the option of providing access to industry standard core fonts
(not just in terms of % market share, but the fact that Apple also
include them as standard) or some other non-industry standard, suspect
quality, clone version, I'd always go for the former, especially as it
seems the license allows this.