update font handling

1 files changed, 177 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/fonts/ubuntu-font-family-0.80/LICENCE-FAQ.txt b/fonts/ubuntu-font-family-0.80/LICENCE-FAQ.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..776a25e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/fonts/ubuntu-font-family-0.80/LICENCE-FAQ.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+                        Ubuntu Font Family Licensing FAQ
+
+  Stylistic Foundations
+
+   The Ubuntu Font Family is the first time that a libre typeface has been
+   designed professionally and explicitly with the intent of developing a
+   public and long-term community-based development process.
+
+   When developing an open project, it is generally necessary to have firm
+   foundations: a font needs to maintain harmony within itself even across
+   many type designers and writing systems. For the [1]Ubuntu Font Family,
+   the process has been guided with the type foundry Dalton Maag setting
+   the project up with firm stylistic foundation covering several
+   left-to-right scripts: Latin, Greek and Cyrillic; and right-to-left
+   scripts: Arabic and Hebrew (due in 2011).
+
+   With this starting point the community will, under the supervision of
+   [2]Canonical and [3]Dalton Maag, be able to build on the existing font
+   sources to expand their character coverage. Ultimately everybody will
+   be able to use the Ubuntu Font Family in their own written languages
+   across the whole of Unicode (and this will take some time!).
+
+  Licensing
+
+   The licence chosen by any free software project is one of the
+   foundational decisions that sets out how derivatives and contributions
+   can occur, and in turn what kind of community will form around the
+   project.
+
+   Using a licence that is compatible with other popular licences is a
+   powerful constraint because of the [4]network effects: the freedom to
+   share improvements between projects allows free software to reach
+   high-quality over time. Licence-proliferation leads to many
+   incompatible licences, undermining the network effect, the freedom to
+   share and ultimately making the libre movement that Ubuntu is a part of
+   less effective. For all kinds of software, writing a new licence is not
+   to be taken lightly and is a choice that needs to be thoroughly
+   justified if this path is taken.
+
+   Today it is not clear to Canonical what the best licence for a font
+   project like the Ubuntu Font Family is: one that starts life designed
+   by professionals and continues with the full range of community
+   development, from highly commercial work in new directions to curious
+   beginners' experimental contributions. The fast and steady pace of the
+   Ubuntu release cycle means that an interim libre licence has been
+   necessary to enable the consideration of the font family as part of
+   Ubuntu 10.10 operating system release.
+
+   Before taking any decision on licensing, Canonical as sponsor and
+   backer of the project has reviewed the many existing licenses used for
+   libre/open fonts and engaged the stewards of the most popular licenses
+   in detailed discussions. The current interim licence is the first step
+   in progressing the state-of-the-art in licensing for libre/open font
+   development.
+
+   The public discussion must now involve everyone in the (comparatively
+   new) area of the libre/open font community; including font users,
+   software freedom advocates, open source supporters and existing libre
+   font developers. Most importantly, the minds and wishes of professional
+   type designers considering entering the free software business
+   community must be taken on board.
+
+   Conversations and discussion has taken place, privately, with
+   individuals from the following groups (generally speaking personally on
+   behalf of themselves, rather than their affiliations):
+     * [5]SIL International
+     * [6]Open Font Library
+     * [7]Software Freedom Law Center
+     * [8]Google Font API
+
+    Document embedding
+
+   One issue highlighted early on in the survey of existing font licences
+   is that of document embedding. Almost all font licences, both free and
+   unfree, permit embedding a font into a document to a certain degree.
+   Embedding a font with other works that make up a document creates a
+   "combined work" and copyleft would normally require the whole document
+   to be distributed under the terms of the font licence. As beautiful as
+   the font might be, such a licence makes a font too restrictive for
+   useful general purpose digital publishing.
+
+   The situation is not entirely unique to fonts and is encountered also
+   with tools such as GNU Bison: a vanilla GNU GPL licence would require
+   anything generated with Bison to be made available under the terms of
+   the GPL as well. To avoid this, Bison is [9]published with an
+   additional permission to the GPL which allows the output of Bison to be
+   made available under any licence.
+
+   The conflict between licensing of fonts and licensing of documents, is
+   addressed in two popular libre font licences, the SIL OFL and GNU GPL:
+     * [10]SIL Open Font Licence: When OFL fonts are embedded in a
+       document, the OFL's terms do not apply to that document. (See
+       [11]OFL-FAQ for details.
+     * [12]GPL Font Exception: The situation is resolved by granting an
+       additional permission to allow documents to not be covered by the
+       GPL. (The exception is being reviewed).
+
+   The Ubuntu Font Family must also resolve this conflict, ensuring that
+   if the font is embedded and then extracted it is once again clearly
+   under the terms of its libre licence.
+
+    Long-term licensing
+
+   Those individuals involved, especially from Ubuntu and Canonical, are
+   interested in finding a long-term libre licence that finds broad favour
+   across the whole libre/open font community. The deliberation during the
+   past months has been on how to licence the Ubuntu Font Family in the
+   short-term, while knowingly encouraging everyone to pursue a long-term
+   goal.
+     * [13]Copyright assignment will be required so that the Ubuntu Font
+       Family's licensing can be progressively expanded to one (or more)
+       licences, as best practice continues to evolve within the
+       libre/open font community.
+     * Canonical will support and fund legal work on libre font licensing.
+       It is recognised that the cost and time commitments required are
+       likely to be significant. We invite other capable parties to join
+       in supporting this activity.
+
+   The GPL version 3 (GPLv3) will be used for Ubuntu Font Family build
+   scripts and the CC-BY-SA for associated documentation and non-font
+   content: all items which do not end up embedded in general works and
+   documents.
+
+Ubuntu Font Licence
+
+   For the short-term only, the initial licence is the [14]Ubuntu Font
+   License (UFL). This is loosely inspired from the work on the SIL
+   OFL 1.1, and seeks to clarify the issues that arose during discussions
+   and legal review, from the perspective of the backers, Canonical Ltd.
+   Those already using established licensing models such as the GPL, OFL
+   or Creative Commons licensing should have no worries about continuing
+   to use them. The Ubuntu Font Licence (UFL) and the SIL Open Font
+   Licence (SIL OFL) are not identical and should not be confused with
+   each other. Please read the terms precisely. The UFL is only intended
+   as an interim license, and the overriding aim is to support the
+   creation of a more suitable and generic libre font licence. As soon as
+   such a licence is developed, the Ubuntu Font Family will migrate to
+   it—made possible by copyright assignment in the interium. Between the
+   OFL 1.1, and the UFL 1.0, the following changes are made to produce the
+   Ubuntu Font Licence:
+     * Clarification:
+
+    1. Document embedding (see [15]embedding section above).
+    2. Apply at point of distribution, instead of receipt
+    3. Author vs. copyright holder disambiguation (type designers are
+       authors, with the copyright holder normally being the funder)
+    4. Define "Propagate" (for internationalisation, similar to the GPLv3)
+    5. Define "Substantially Changed"
+    6. Trademarks are explicitly not transferred
+    7. Refine renaming requirement
+
+     Streamlining:
+    8. Remove "not to be sold separately" clause
+    9. Remove "Reserved Font Name(s)" declaration
+
+   A visual demonstration of how these points were implemented can be
+   found in the accompanying coloured diff between SIL OFL 1.1 and the
+   Ubuntu Font Licence 1.0: [16]ofl-1.1-ufl-1.0.diff.html
+
+References
+
+   1. http://font.ubuntu.com/
+   2. http://www.canonical.com/
+   3. http://www.daltonmaag.com/
+   4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
+   5. http://scripts.sil.org/
+   6. http://openfontlibrary.org/
+   7. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
+   8. http://code.google.com/webfonts
+   9. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF
+  10. http://scripts.sil.org/OFL_web
+  11. http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web
+  12. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
+  13. https://launchpad.net/~uff-contributors
+  14. http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ubuntu-font-licence-1.0.txt
+  15. http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/FAQ.html#embedding
+  16. http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ofl-1.1-ufl-1.0.diff.html