Please add yourself to Google Fonts

[StoneCypher]

This is fantastic. I just packaged you up with Font Squirrel, and I'm going to waste the React community's time with this almost immediately.

This would be easier to use it if was on Google Fonts.

[davelab6]

I work in the Google Fonts team and manage the font collection :)

Sadly the MIT license this font is distributed under isn't one of the licenses we accept, and also we don't allow font family names with the foundry to be included.

Would AtF consider changing the license to the SIL Open Font license, and renaming the fonts?

Sadly http://namecheck.fontdata.com/?q=spark says there is a font with that exact name available from www.Myfonts.com, designed by Robbie de Villiers in 2005, published by Wilton Foundry.

https://github.com/google/fonts/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md lists other requirements.

[StoneCypher]

@davelab6 , Why don't you accept MIT license? 😡

[davelab6]

The OFL was written specifically for fonts.

[StoneCypher]

As a downstream user, I wouldn't want a bunch of meaningless symbols added.

1. that prevents fallback from occuring correctly
2. that makes the font larger

What is the goal of that requirement in special cases like these?

[StoneCypher]

Also, telling me that the OFL was written specifically for fonts doesn't tell me why the MIT isn't good enough.

[davelab6]

What is the goal of that requirement in special cases like these?

Font pickers often render fonts in themselves, and if the font doesn't have the glyphs to do that, the rendering can be undefined. The main scenario for this requirement is multilingual fonts, rather than 'special graphic design' fonts like this one. I suppose that in a special case only the glyph needed to render the font name by itself could be included.

telling me that the OFL was written specifically for fonts doesn't tell me why the MIT isn't good enough

You can compare the terms, they aren't long licenses; in particular, OFL §5 is superior because it ensures all users have freedom with all copies, and provides clarity that documents are not subject to the terms.

If you want to read a longer essay on font licensing, you can check out my MA dissertation on the topic :)

[StoneCypher]

ah. the section 5 comment makes sense.

it's a little weird, as the mit one seems to be unambiguous as well, but, ok

[davelab6]

Section 5 has two things, a document exception, and a copyleft clause; the latter is a substantial departure from MIT.

[ghost]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the useful discussion. We have now updated our license to use SIL OFL. AtF Spark does not currently meet the requirements for Google Fonts as we have not included all 215 of the glyphs. We will let you know as soon as we have it ready.

[davelab6]

Awesome!!

…

On Sep 26, 2017 11:06 AM, "sabihali" ***@***.***> wrote: Hi everyone, Thanks for all the useful discussion. We have now updated our license to use SIL OFL. AtF Spark does not currently meet the requirements for Google Fonts as we have not currently included all 215 of the glyphs. We will let you know as soon as we have it ready. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#11 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAP9y4wjpJOedn1OcDcftmSltia8FjlKks5smRGMgaJpZM4Ph-Ps> .