Fedora 7 CD Labels & Covers

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le dimanche 27 mai 2007 à 00:12 -0400, Máirí­n Duffy a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> [... snip ...]
> 
> > A very crude way to assess a font is to upload it on
> > http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/font/custom.htm read the glyph
> > count and look at the glyph matrix. A much better indicator would be the
> > language support coverage matrix DejaVu publishes with every release but
> > its generator needs fontconfig sources and fonts in sfd format (IIRC) so
> > it's not useful for the average artists. We really need a tester tool
> > that would do the same on any on-disk ttf/otf font.
> 
> Sweet, this is all very useful info, thank you!
> 
> > Anyway, some result for F7 common FLOSS fonts:
> > - DejaVu Sans/Serif: 4538/1939
> > - DejaVU LGC Sans/Serif: 3532/1881

And I've forgotten
- Charis SIL: 3084 (but the Fedora version is out of date and includes
non-unicode glyphs)
- Doulos SIL: 3083 (if you don't need italic or bold)

> > - Linux Libertine: 2274
> > - Gentium: 1699
> > - Liberation Sans/Serif: 668/661
> > - Vera Sans/Serif: 268
> 
> Cool I haven't heard of a couple of those actually (Libertine and 
> Gentium) so I will check them out.

Gentium has a terrific reputation but is not growing very fast

> Are the Luxi and Nimbus fonts FLOSS at all?

Luxi - no¹, Nimbus, maybe (but they're dead wood and thoroughly lacking
coverage anyway)

> I was proposing to use it for titles - eg the name of the CD/DVD.

And I wrote I was ok with title use in my first message

> (and I was especially not proposing using only 
> Liberation Sans beyond the scope of this CD/DVD label design). Seriously.

Then it was not so clear to me, sorry
 
> >> How are non-technical Fedora groups making Liberation a Fedora emblem? 
> > 
> > The original RH PR release wrote about FLOSS fonts intended to replace
> > [a lot of things] (when it will be finished), and many people have taken
> > it as "Fedora intent is to use Liberation in all its documents *now*
> > because it's the only realistic FLOSS font"
> 
> I just re-read the Red Hat press release and I think that's a bit of a 
> leap you've made there. If you can point to some specific quote...

That's what many people understood (just read reactions in ML archives)
and it was never clarified officially.

> > Current default is DejaVu LGC which is not produced by Bitstream but by
> > a FLOSS project. 
> 
> DejaVu is a fork of Bitstream, is it not? Or I have completely 
> misunderstood?

Bitstream contributions are the core of DejaVu but they've long since
been dwarfed by non-Bitstream community contributions

> > Also there's no possible comparison between the
> > handling by GNOME of the Bitstream fonts and the handling by Red Hat of
> > Liberation. 
> 
> Why?

You can easily check on the GNOME page that the Vera release team did a
lot of work to collect and encourage feedback, and answer common
questions (that's a big reason DejaVu happened a few years later). The
Liberation page does not even have contact info to send questions to.

> >> Or did Bitstream do the work and then license it openly? 
> >> (It's a real question, I actually honestly don't know; I was pretty
> >> sure the latter was the case though.)
> > 
> > Bitstream did most of the work but the final stage saw a dialog between
> > the designer and the FLOSS community (feedback, change demands, etc.).
> > Vera was not just a PR release with some files to download.
> > 
> > http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ has archived all of it.
> 
> Have you tried to work with Red Hat on Liberation in its final stages 
> (as it's not complete yet) and not heard back or something?

I've asked the various @rh people that have relayed Liberation-related
stuff Fedora-side and never received any actual answers (more like "we
don't care it's our stuff go away" reactions). 

¹ http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html#34

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-art-list/attachments/20070527/609474d1/attachment.sig>