Hi all
[I wanted to prepare a bit more before writing this, but it seems everyone is asking about the same things at once, so this will have to do]
I'd like know what people think of setting up a font SIG, and if there are enough would-be contributors for such a SIG to be viable. Fonts are a very transversal subject in Fedora, and the initial To: list reflects this. Please take care to reply on fedora-devel only however.
The situation right now is:
1. we have several font packages in Fedora, but are only scratching what could be packaged. http://mihmo.livejournal.com/45152.html
2. In particular the art team wants a lot more fonts in for its Art spin http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/ArtTeamProjects/FedoraArtStudio
3. I don't believe our font selection is optimal for every locale. It took a near-revolt by our Greek users to get their situation fixed in Fedora Core 6, and there are probably many other problem locales, where users just pass on Fedora or bear their pain silently instead of telling us about problems.
4. The i18n team is nominally in charge of selecting the best fonts for each locale, but does not always have the right local contacts to do so. So far i18n has focused on technical problems : if your locale needs complex IM methods you have i18n visibility, if your locale poses no technical challenge but your default fonts are suboptimal the i18n team may not notice you.
4. The l10n team has local contacts and could provide useful feedback on font choices, currently packaged font problems, local foundries/font designers that could be contacted to contribute to the FLOSS font pool, etc but has mostly focused on translation so far.
5. The desktop team handles our font infrastructure and takes the heat when a font is badly rendered (since we can not use the patented freetype autohinter many fonts that work fine under windows do not under Fedora)
6. We already have some font-related material disseminated on our wiki: - packaging rules, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-4863fc4c93cec... - licensing rules http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-63f9d798a33b23a752e5a3b22a08880... - other http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts/DejaVu
7. The font situation is bad enough we have a font exception to our FLOSS rules http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-daa717ea096fa4d9cf7b... [for example we ship Luxi even though its licensing forbids modification, making it non-free http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html]
8. There are efforts to drain the font licensing swamp and promote FLOSS fonts (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/), they are aligned with Fedora general objectives yet Fedora has totally ignored them so far (cf Liberation licensing choices)
This is a stark contrast with the very active debian font team : http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/GUIFonts The main part of the OLPC font page is the Debian font list! http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Fonts
I believe there is enough interest in the various Fedora groups to improve the current situation through a font SIG.
This SIG would be tasked with: A. providing a single point of entry for Fedora people interested in fonts, centralizing all our packaging rules or at least indexing them in a single place B. completing the existing font packaging documentation C. helping the i18n team maintain the font install list for each locale D. identifying fonts worthy of packaging for l10n or art reasons E. identifying problems in existing font packages and helping relay the info upstream F. identifying problems in our font infrastructure, packaging necessary font tools G. coordinating and effectively packaging new fonts
As the current maintainer of dejavu, and a co-maintainer of charis and dejavu-lgc, I am ready to write a commented font spec example (B) (without legacy core font bits, which IMHO should be optional nowadays ; however I'm sure there are people ready and willing to write this part as an extension), and package a few fonts (G).
The l10n and i18n groups are naturals for (C). We just have to steal the Debian receipe of having a font-by-locale table in our wiki.
I think it's pretty obvious the art team is motivated by (E). IMHO the l10n team should have a role there too. Note that doing the legal analysis of a potential font is far from easy as font licensing practices are far less clean than software licensing practices. Also we should try to build font from sources whenever possible, but font building is often a mess.
G will demand packagers and reviewers. By nature most of them will be active in other Fedora forums, so we're not talking of a few full-time SIG members but a lot of part-time contributors.
I created a mockup wiki page to try to make all this clear http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NicolasMailhot/FontMatrix It's far from complete, but I hope it's complete enough to give everyone an idea of the potential SIG scope.
So, who wants to play? Is Fedora ready for a font SIG or should I ask again next year?
Kind regards,
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
- I don't believe our font selection is optimal for every locale. It
took a near-revolt by our Greek users to get their situation fixed in Fedora Core 6, and there are probably many other problem locales, where users just pass on Fedora or bear their pain silently instead of telling us about problems.
Please note that the fonts wanted by the art team don't need large locale coverage, they are not intended for documents or graphic interfaces, but mostly for fancy graphics, like a logo made with GIMP or such, so I don't think that should be a blocker for adding a font (in a non-default package).
Le Ven 14 septembre 2007 14:05, Nicu Buculei a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
- I don't believe our font selection is optimal for every locale.
It took a near-revolt by our Greek users to get their situation fixed in Fedora Core 6, and there are probably many other problem locales, where users just pass on Fedora or bear their pain silently instead of telling us about problems.
Please note that the fonts wanted by the art team don't need large locale coverage,
I believe there are also artists in non-latin countries that'd like to create logos and other fancy graphics for their language.
Anyway: this was not an argument against packaging fonts with limited coverage for art reasons (as long as they are not default). This was an argument to also package fonts art has little interest in.
Regards,
I noticed there is already http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts.
Should we create http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts or use Fonts?
-Jens
Jens Petersen wrote:
I noticed there is already http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts.
Should we create http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts or use Fonts?
The latter. Also list it in the root page.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram さんは書きました:
Jens Petersen wrote:
I noticed there is already http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts. Should we create http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts or use Fonts?
The latter. Also list it in the root page.
Ok, I just asked since I noticed a lot of the other groups on the SIGs page also seem to be using root pages... but I agree since the Fonts SIGs is closely related to packaging and package collections. :)
Thanks, Jens
Le Ven 21 septembre 2007 06:32, Jens Petersen a écrit :
Rahul Sundaram さんは書きました:
Jens Petersen wrote:
I noticed there is already http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts. Should we create http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts or use Fonts?
The latter. Also list it in the root page.
Ok, I just asked since I noticed a lot of the other groups on the SIGs page also seem to be using root pages... but I agree since the Fonts SIGs is closely related to packaging and package collections. :)
I guess that means the font SIG is a go, and I'll work on it tomorrow. Can we squat one of the existing fedora irc channels to coordinate, or should a new one be created ? (alternatively ##fonts is low traffic and used by other floss font groups)
Le vendredi 21 septembre 2007 à 14:05 +1000, Jens Petersen a écrit :
I noticed there is already http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts.
Should we create http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts or use Fonts?
Ok, I've created http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts and started fleshing it out.
It's not declared in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs yet because there is still a lot of work to do, moving all the existing fonts-related wiki material in a single place, integrating it in something coherent, filling the holes, getting the policy pages reviewed, etc.
I'd appreciate any help getting this done. If you want more info just PM me.
Hi, On 9/14/07, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all
[I wanted to prepare a bit more before writing this, but it seems everyone is asking about the same things at once, so this will have to do]
Thanks for your mail.
I'd like know what people think of setting up a font SIG, and if there are enough would-be contributors for such a SIG to be viable. Fonts are a very transversal subject in Fedora, and the initial To: list reflects this. Please take care to reply on fedora-devel only however.
The situation right now is:
- we have several font packages in Fedora, but are only scratching
what could be packaged. http://mihmo.livejournal.com/45152.html
- In particular the art team wants a lot more fonts in for its Art spin
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/ArtTeamProjects/FedoraArtStudio
- I don't believe our font selection is optimal for every locale. It
took a near-revolt by our Greek users to get their situation fixed in Fedora Core 6, and there are probably many other problem locales, where users just pass on Fedora or bear their pain silently instead of telling us about problems.
- The i18n team is nominally in charge of selecting the best fonts
for each locale, but does not always have the right local contacts to do so. So far i18n has focused on technical problems : if your locale needs complex IM methods you have i18n visibility, if your locale poses no technical challenge but your default fonts are suboptimal the i18n team may not notice you.
- The l10n team has local contacts and could provide useful feedback
on font choices, currently packaged font problems, local foundries/font designers that could be contacted to contribute to the FLOSS font pool, etc but has mostly focused on translation so far.
- The desktop team handles our font infrastructure and takes the heat
when a font is badly rendered (since we can not use the patented freetype autohinter many fonts that work fine under windows do not under Fedora)
- We already have some font-related material disseminated on our wiki:
- packaging rules,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-4863fc4c93cec...
- licensing rules
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-63f9d798a33b23a752e5a3b22a08880...
- other
Yes. But still I think good to have a single page say http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Fonts
- The font situation is bad enough we have a font exception to our
FLOSS rules http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-daa717ea096fa4d9cf7b... [for example we ship Luxi even though its licensing forbids modification, making it non-free http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html]
- There are efforts to drain the font licensing swamp and promote
FLOSS fonts (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/), they are aligned with Fedora general objectives yet Fedora has totally ignored them so far (cf Liberation licensing choices)
I18n and more importantly l10n team should check those fonts and provide which fonts are rendering fine in fedora so that we can see them packaged for fedora.
This is a stark contrast with the very active debian font team : http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/GUIFonts The main part of the OLPC font page is the Debian font list! http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Fonts
We should also have all fonts packages for fedora be listed in Font Matrix.
I believe there is enough interest in the various Fedora groups to improve the current situation through a font SIG.
This SIG would be tasked with: A. providing a single point of entry for Fedora people interested in fonts, centralizing all our packaging rules or at least indexing them in a single place B. completing the existing font packaging documentation C. helping the i18n team maintain the font install list for each locale D. identifying fonts worthy of packaging for l10n or art reasons E. identifying problems in existing font packages and helping relay the info upstream F. identifying problems in our font infrastructure, packaging necessary font tools G. coordinating and effectively packaging new fonts
As the current maintainer of dejavu, and a co-maintainer of charis and dejavu-lgc, I am ready to write a commented font spec example (B) (without legacy core font bits, which IMHO should be optional nowadays ; however I'm sure there are people ready and willing to write this part as an extension), and package a few fonts (G).
The l10n and i18n groups are naturals for (C). We just have to steal the Debian receipe of having a font-by-locale table in our wiki.
yes. we should have that list.
I think it's pretty obvious the art team is motivated by (E). IMHO the l10n team should have a role there too. Note that doing the legal analysis of a potential font is far from easy as font licensing practices are far less clean than software licensing practices. Also we should try to build font from sources whenever possible, but font building is often a mess.
G will demand packagers and reviewers. By nature most of them will be active in other Fedora forums, so we're not talking of a few full-time SIG members but a lot of part-time contributors.
I created a mockup wiki page to try to make all this clear http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NicolasMailhot/FontMatrix It's far from complete, but I hope it's complete enough to give everyone an idea of the potential SIG scope.
Thanks for that.
So, who wants to play? Is Fedora ready for a font SIG or should I ask again next year?
+1 to have font SIG.
Regards, Parag.
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
I'd like know what people think of setting up a font SIG
I think it is a great idea!
- I don't believe our font selection is optimal for every locale. It
took a near-revolt by our Greek users to get their situation fixed in Fedora Core 6, and there are probably many other problem locales, where users just pass on Fedora or bear their pain silently instead of telling us about problems.
True.
- The i18n team is nominally in charge of selecting the best fonts
for each locale, but does not always have the right local contacts to do so. So far i18n has focused on technical problems : if your locale needs complex IM methods you have i18n visibility, if your locale poses no technical challenge but your default fonts are suboptimal the i18n team may not notice you.
Right and we are currently working hard moving all the fonts in our generic fonts-* to separate packages with their upstream names.
I believe there is enough interest in the various Fedora groups to improve the current situation through a font SIG.
Yes.
This SIG would be tasked with: A. providing a single point of entry for Fedora people interested in fonts, centralizing all our packaging rules or at least indexing them in a single place B. completing the existing font packaging documentation C. helping the i18n team maintain the font install list for each locale D. identifying fonts worthy of packaging for l10n or art reasons E. identifying problems in existing font packages and helping relay the info upstream F. identifying problems in our font infrastructure, packaging necessary font tools G. coordinating and effectively packaging new fonts
Looks good to me.
The l10n and i18n groups are naturals for (C). We just have to steal the Debian receipe of having a font-by-locale table in our wiki.
Yes
Note that doing the legal analysis of a potential font is far from easy as font licensing practices are far less clean than software licensing practices. Also we should try to build font from sources whenever possible, but font building is often a mess.
That is right - the legal side is more often harder than the packaging and reviewing.
G will demand packagers and reviewers. By nature most of them will be active in other Fedora forums, so we're not talking of a few full-time SIG members but a lot of part-time contributors.
Right, I guess this will be the main visible fruit of the SIG's efforts, which will provide good font packaging standards, guidelines and examples as you say.
I created a mockup wiki page to try to make all this clear http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NicolasMailhot/FontMatrix
Cool
So, who wants to play? Is Fedora ready for a font SIG or should I ask again next year?
I'm in. :) I think we need this sonner rather than later. Probably a bit late to make an impact on F8 but certainly we can start preparing now for F9.
Thanks for the initiative!
Jens
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 13:51 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
- The font situation is bad enough we have a font exception to our
FLOSS rules http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-daa717ea096fa4d9cf7b... [for example we ship Luxi even though its licensing forbids modification, making it non-free http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html]
Open a bug report. Let's start the process of having it removed in F9.
- There are efforts to drain the font licensing swamp and promote
FLOSS fonts (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/), they are aligned with Fedora general objectives yet Fedora has totally ignored them so far (cf Liberation licensing choices)
Keep in mind that Liberation licensing was a Red Hat, Inc decision, not a Fedora decision.
Also, we haven't totally ignored the OFL, since it is listed as the "preferred" font license on the Fedora licensing page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts
~spot
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Nicu Buculei -
Parag Nemade -
Rahul Sundaram -
Tom Callaway