http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/type/an-update-on-the-status-of-utopia Open Source Publishing - Design Tools For Designers Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:33:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/type/an-update-on-the-status-of-utopia/comment-page-1#comment-45164 danny Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:43:19 +0000 http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/?p=560#comment-45164 so to clarify - if I want to take the TUG .pfb version of Utopia and make an OpenType version, just a straight conversion with FontForge without any modifications, can I distribute this .otf version as "Utopia"? so to clarify – if I want to take the TUG .pfb version of Utopia and make an OpenType version, just a straight conversion with FontForge without any modifications, can I distribute this .otf version as “Utopia”?

]]> http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/type/an-update-on-the-status-of-utopia/comment-page-1#comment-42594 Madcrow Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:32:48 +0000 http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/?p=560#comment-42594 To me, the biggest disappointment wasn't that Adobe won't license Utopia under the OFL, but that they have no plans to ever freely release any OTHER fonts under any license. While the situation isn't TOO dire these days, what with URW having donated a complete set of "Basic" fonts under the GPL and another, larger, set of fonts under the AFPL and all, but still... To me, the biggest disappointment wasn’t that Adobe won’t license Utopia under the OFL, but that they have no plans to ever freely release any OTHER fonts under any license. While the situation isn’t TOO dire these days, what with URW having donated a complete set of “Basic” fonts under the GPL and another, larger, set of fonts under the AFPL and all, but still…

]]> http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/type/an-update-on-the-status-of-utopia/comment-page-1#comment-40740 FeIZocE Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:43:04 +0000 http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/?p=560#comment-40740 I mentioned Thomas' comment on my blog with some kind of regrets. Not that I suspect this license to be restrictive, but to my mind it's a pity that the OFL will not include such a famous font (though not the latter version) in its library. Anyway, the license is really close to open source licenses. That's still a big step. Thanks Thomas :) I mentioned Thomas’ comment on my blog with some kind of regrets. Not that I suspect this license to be restrictive, but to my mind it’s a pity that the OFL will not include such a famous font (though not the latter version) in its library.
Anyway, the license is really close to open source licenses. That’s still a big step. Thanks Thomas

]]>