Jump to content

Talk:Core fonts for the Web

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I changed the archive.org link to point to: 20020124085641 as it contains a newer version of Courier New for the Macintosh. 68.114.100.38 21:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

npov sentence

[edit]

I like to bash Microsoft as much as the rest of us, but for the sake of neutrality, might we want to either remove or expand the one-sentence paragraph about Håkon Wium Lie? ~RCanine 

   Removed.--129.241.124.112 23:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning Presumed Requirement to Keep Archives in Their Original Format

[edit]

I read the EULA and I do not believe that the following statement is true. Where in the EULA is this required? I do not see how the archive containing the EULA and the font file can be considered to be part of the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT". I think everybody is been jumping through a lot of hoops based on a misunderstanding. 

allows redistribution as long as the packages are kept in their original format

UPDATE: I now see that this is specified in the FAQ. However, I still don't see how you can get this out of reading the EULA. How can the FAQ be binding? 

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.

12.202.127.163 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Disponibility

[edit]

It could be interesting to add a small description on how avalable those fonts are on others plateform (even if it's not the aim of this MS initiative). For example, Impact is not in the standard MAC OS X package, Trebuchet MS is in the standard MAC OS X package but can be disable, Georgia is in the standard MAC OS X package and can't be disabled ([1]). Georgia is serif. What is the most cross-platforme sans-serif one? Could be be very valuable to indicate that kind of thing. Lacrymocéphale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.19.145 (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newer versions

[edit]

I think Microsoft released newer versions for some of them, however, I doubt they have favorable redistribution license. click here --Voidvector (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The Core fonts project page on Sourceforge claims they are being distributed under GPL. (Go here and click "details.") I can't for the life of me see how the original EULA would allow this. Can anyone provide a citation of someone who explains the chain of legal logic here? Otherwise, I still consider it to be unsubstantiated, despite the reference to the original license. As far as I can see, the citation doesn't prove what it's supposed to prove. Hopefully, I'm missing something. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that they are NOT being distributed under GPL, but as long as Sourceforge is hosting the original unaltered Microsoft archive distribution files, then Sourceforge's distribution of such files is presumably legal. However, the article currently says nothing about Sourceforge licensing terms, and doesn't cite any reference about Sourceforge licensing terms, so I'm not too sure what you're asking about... AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already worked this through with Jdavidb. Here is the breakdown:

Content License Redistribution permission Hosting on SourceForge
Font packages (in .exe) Microsoft EULA Allowed in original format ???
RPM installer GPL of course of course

Now the only possible problem is SourceForge not allowing hosting of non-OSS binaries. There might be problem here, since to my understanding SourceForge doesn't even allow developers to host non-OSS libraries. I told Jdavidb to contact SourceForge for clarification. They probably can classify the font under media, which doesn't have to be OSS.

It won't really matter much, even if SourceForge remove the font packages, someone else can host it easily since redistribution was allowed in the original license. --Voidvector (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, that's all about whether hosting the files violates Sourceforge's internal policies, not whether such hosting is legal... AnonMoos (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Core fonts for the Web. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Core_fonts_for_the_Web&oldid=1201147647"