Licences Question : Squeak-L Art 6.
danielv at netvision.net.il
Sun Feb 23 16:15:17 UTC 2003
I think replacing the fonts is one of the easy things we can do to make
things simpler, Easy, mostly, because people have already done this work
(as John described), and it's on SM, pretty much ready to go.
The goal of cleaning up licensing issues is IMHO, important enough that
I don't mind getting these fonts in the image, even if we later decide
to have alternative fonts packages, or even other fonts in by default.
It's pretty clear to me the important thing here is to simplify issues
as much as possible with big players like Apple/MS.
We can customize to our hearts content later.
"John W. Sarkela" <sarkela at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The only constraint on the AccuFont license is that the source is
> acknowledged. (It is embedded in an unused glyph.) John McIntosh
> was instrumental in helping to arrange the availability of these fonts,
> and Duane Maxwell allowed Rob Withers and I to convert the
> fonts from a Windows2.0 format to a Squeak strike font with the
> underscores changed to back arrows as a work task while we
> were at Exobox.
> The Squeak World Tour used these fonts so that we could build
> an image without the Apple/Microsoft font issues of the current image.
> There are no constraints on use of the fonts in products derived
> from Squeak.
> :-}> John
> On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 07:22 AM, Cees de Groot wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 18:46, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> >> About the fonts - I agree. Doug, Ned, how about adding the AccuFonts
> >> package, with an answer of "yes" to the replace fonts question, as the
> >> first update to 3.5alpha, and producing an image with that update, to
> >> create an Apple-font-free official image that we can bring to the
> >> Apple
> >> table?
> > Aren't the Accufont limited by a similar license? (i.e. "only for
> > Squeak"?). I'm not sure, just recalled something like that (which is
> > part of the reason I went with Helvetica - the other part being that it
> > makes Squeak look more 'normal').
> >> By "details" I meant any that might help understand what different
> >> things they are concerned about for projects they are currently
> >> stewarding, as opposed to Squeak.
> > I'm completely in the dark at the moment. There's a request lying on
> > the
> > desk of the Higher Powers at Apple to look at it, and as I said I'm
> > expecting an answer on that at the end of next month, latest.
> > <signature.asc>
More information about the Squeak-dev