It just occurred to me, what’s the difference between an open source font, and a free font?

There is "free" as in you don't need to compensate the designer, then there's what people call "libre" which means free for redistribution. Technically all four possible combinations of those two can exist, although in practice you can't really charge money for a libre font because within minutes somebody will put out an identical free version. Of course it can get pretty complicated pretty quickly, for example if you believe that "open-source" means that the tools to make the original also need to be free (or even libre).

The fatal flaw in the "things must be libre" philosophy is simple: freedom is over-rated. It's nice, but it's just another thing that needs to be factored in life. Anybody who's really concerned with social responsibility knows very well that big chunks of individual freedom need to be sacrificed for the greater good. Don't believe all this Western hype.

hhp

hrant:
The fatal flaw in the "things must be libre" philosophy is simple: freedom is over-rated. It's nice, but it's just another thing that needs to be factored in life.

Survival is the most important thing in life, because it is the true sine qua non: and if you are not free (by one important definition) your survival is at risk.

This is why having a free press and free elections are vital; without control over your local government, you can be enslaved or slaughtered at whim.

Anybody who's really concerned with social responsibility knows very well that big chunks of individual freedom need to be sacrificed for the greater good.

This, though, I don't disagree with, in some senses and contexts. Without governments with the power to tax and conscript, the Western democracies would have been conquered long ago by Stalin or Hitler. So I reject Libertarianism and similar ideologies.

Don't believe all this Western hype.

But here I strongly disagree. I think the Western vision of liberty, handed down in civics courses, is basically accurate.
It does contain a few things that are flawed, though.

There are self-serving rationalizations that define the stealing of land from indigenous people as something other than theft. because they didn't "develop" the land by practising agriculture. To take away the hunting grounds people need to feed themselves is as murderous as denying someone air by smothering him with a pillow (which also puts paid to the "property is theft" nonsense on the other side).

The effort to combat demagoguery, which is understandable, fails to address the justification for the welfare state, if not socialism; children are not at fault for being born into poverty. But the other side can retort that the responsible are not to blame for the feckless.

My logical conclusion is that someone does owe you a living, but it is your parents, not the State; and thus the State may legitimately demand financial responsibility as a qualification for reproduction. How it can do that without outraging the Right (interfering in intimate affairs) or the Left (effective genocide against disadvantaged minorities) is... left as an exercise for the reader.

@Karl – The UFL (Ubuntu Font Licence) is a modified OFL. I think the UFL permits selling the fonts as separate products, but it's been a while since I read it.

@Chris – If you want the boiled-down version... Free can be gratis (free beer) or libre (free speech). Open source is libre.

Your survival is at risk if you expect too much freedom.

Free press and free elections are illusions that limit freedom.

I'm not saying freedom is bad, just that we're brainwashed into thinking it's the ultimate goal. Just like we're brainwashed into thinking death is the ultimate defeat. Those are counter to human nature. There's a reason people admire martyrs, even though systems hate them.

the State may legitimately demand financial responsibility as a qualification for reproduction.

That's too Sparta for me. BTW try to see Gattaca.

hhp

@Mark Simonson: That was a great piece of writing. Thanks.

Source Sans Pro

ask yourself in how many fonts you've ever wanted to change just a few wordstopping characters

For some weird reason though that seems to happen almost exclusively with free fonts...

Also, there might be a reason something was designed in a certain way that a non-designer won't understand... until it's too late. For example if you see a "g" that feels a bit vertically cramped and you decide to make it drop lower, you're making things worse not better, and you won't even know.

We know from research in many areas that the knowledge and creativity of the masses will nearly always outperform that of an expert individual.

I for one know no such thing. And it's counter to common sense that you could know how to do something without expending the effort to learn how to do it.

One area that I think laymen can certainly help though is feedback: a mechanism for expressing opinions about what's wrong with a font (or what could be added) would be awesome. Some designers will be too proud to pay heed to outside opinion, but the way I define Designer the good ones will be all ears.

hhp

@hrant – Open-sourced free fonts do explicitly invite this type of tinkering. (chibi-Rowan rubs 's tiny little chibi-hands together in glee with a tiny little manic smile on 's chibi-face…)

Please don't tinker with a car's braking system. Even if it's your car.
You haven’t been near my brother :)

If you weren't leading off from my "feedback mechanism" suggestion, what were you leading off from?

hhp

So you're saying open-source free fonts invite tinkering because they suck, and we're supposed to be happy about that? Were you on the team that made the Chevy Corvair?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

hhp

Open-source fonts invite tinkering because it's legal, and you can even distribute the modified result. That can be feedback if your tinkering is hailed as an improvement.

Flawed typefaces don't have to be open-source; only when they are is there this recourse.

What does feedback have to do with the legal concept of open source?

Darren (DiSH) wrote:

Beyond just a list of the open-source fonts that have been attempted so far, it would be a great feat of digital social justice to compile a statistical list of the fonts people would most like to change, down to individual glyphs, prioritize them, and let those fonts loose to the masses to start whittling and improving for everyone to benefit.

I was trying salvage something usable from that la-la-land talk by saying that more -and more formal- public feedback would certainly be a good thing. (What's ludicrous is expecting untrained people to actually carry out judicious modifications.)

hhp

I'll thank you, @hrant, for not putting words in my mouth! You were the one saying open-source fonts invite tinkering because they suck!

Nope, open-source fonts invite tinkering through their licensing. I can legally (if not skillfully) make them fit my preferences, and in the ultra-remote case that anyone wants my modifications, I can give them a copy there and then.

I'm not God. I'm not Chuck Norris. No way do I claim to be perfect, so I'm obviously not you.

I think that's a theoretical fear rather than a real one.

I can grab a copy of the Apache web server source code, make inept changes, and then give it away, but no one is going to use my version over the main branch version. Most licenses require that any derivations be uniquely named as such to avoid confusion as to which is the 'main' branch.

Now, granted, that's all accepted standard procedure when it comes to open source software projects, and maybe that level of project formality hasn't been applied to open source typefaces specifically.

It's still better to get an actual type designer to do it.

hhp

@Té Rowan: “I'm myself hacking on PT Sans/Serif…”

Is this a typeface you are modifying? If so, what typeface?

And Ubuntu isn't just a distro.

It is relatively easy to compose new characters in all three faces, as there is a good variety of components to build with. And, since I am targetting only myself, I shan't be too worried if an underdot is 0.001em too far west.

Norrachance... Who wants homebrew Pinyin translit characters in PT Serif anyway? Or an 'okina in Ubuntu? Other than me, that is?

Correct me if I am wrong, an open source typeface is a typeface with an “open user license.” Have I got it?

Huerta Tipografica – Andada Free Font by Carolina Giovagnoli
The free typeface was given the 2010 Design Award by Bienal Ibero-Americana. It includes the basic set, accented characters, signs and punctuation, numbers, ligatures, and mathematical signs. R/I/B/BI all with small caps. Released under the SIL Open Font License.

http://www.google.com/webfonts/specimen/Andada
This link has info, but the download is for Alegreya not Andada:
http://thefontfontyeahs.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/huerta-tipografica-anda...

@Chris Dean

Renaissance Man: Sorry, I don’t think I understand; Sorry is right. In what grade did you drop out?

1. What is “R/I/B/BI”? AYFKM?
2. What is “SIL Open Font License”? Did you read the post by Karl Stange?
3. Are you referring to free fonts, or open source fonts? Did you define open source fonts? Did you read the post by Karl Stange?
4. What are the actual names of the fonts, and their respective links mentioned above? Duh! ANDADA! Links are for info and download of the whole family as stated.

Remember, it’s always better to err on the side of Plain Language writing in a public forum so readers don’t have to Google every second word. Pretentious and smug.

And don’t forget to use informative hyperlinks. Don’t hyperlink words like “here.” Hyperlink a meaningful word-strings that inform the user as to the destination of the hyperlink. Did I use hyperlink words like “here”? Boilerplate responses make it look like you didn't even read the post before you responded.

Chris, plain language is for plain folk. It's not that you should try to be not plain if you are, it's that you shouldn't try to be plain if you aren't.

hhp