Talk:Open-source Unicode typefaces

Cardo

Acording to my sources Cardo is licensed under OFL and should be listed here. src: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cardo_fonts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.232.145.151 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

GNU Unifont?

A search for "unifont" on www.gnu.org finds no hits. And a search on the net doesn't find many references either. Is the claim on the wikipedia article true that this font is available on GNU/Linux systems and X.org installations? Gronky 14:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've written some free software under the GNU GPL to work with the GNU Unifont, and added missing glyphs (some under the GNU GPL, and some I released into the public domain). They're available for download on a website. Is it okay to add a link to your own website, or are we expected to ask an editor to review and add a link because of conflict of interest? Also, the GNU Unifont section mentions that the Unifont is being maintained by someone on the Debian project, but I could not find contact information for him on the Debian website or elsewhere. Does anyone have contact information for him? Roman Czyborra's website is up, and I've sent him my additions. --Ph9000 (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Roman Czyborra has told me that he is still maintaining the GNU Unifont.--Ph9000 (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your question here and on my talk page about the link originally placed by User talk:Unifoundry, which appears to be your old account, I think the objection to the link comes more under WP:EL than WP:COI. This article already has more external links than it probably needs. Adding a link to unifoundry, would only exacerbate the problem. While I understand that promoting your website is difficult, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, see WP:NOT#LINK. AndyBQ (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I was mainly interested in promoting the completion of the GNU Unifont. Its coverage of the Unicode Basic Multilingual Plane is awesome, but thousands of glyphs still remain to be added. I would like to request adding a GNU Unifont stub (a la the existing Free UCS Outline Fonts entry). With its own page, we could add more detail of its Unicode coverage than is probably appropriate for a catch-all free Unicode fonts page. Like AJRobbins, I thought the giant PNG file was pretty cool. Do you think it would it be okay to resurrect it if the GNU Unifont had its own entry?--Ph9000 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image/icon comment

I'm sad, the beautiful huge image is gone :-( I liked that image, it was nice. AJRobbins (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to break the flow of the article. Perhaps a thumbnail of it, running down the right side of the article, would work. AndyBQ (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AndyBQ, can you provide a link to that image for inclusion in a separate page?--Ph9000 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The huge image mentioned was GNU_unifont.png. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A more recent – and larger! – version of the image is linked to from the GNU Unifont page, at [1]. You could improve this article, either by linking to it, or (better) by creating one or more smaller, derivative images that illustrate some of the various glyphs, then showing those new images on this article's page. yoyo (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Illustration

If these fonts are free software, could we have (reasonable) illustrations of the different fonts on this page? Shreevatsa (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hanazono Minchō

I have added Hanazono Minchō to the list. More information can be found on the Japanese Wikipedia ([2]) or at [3]. It is quite possible the first free software font to cover CJK ext.C, but I have no direct proof of that, so I used "one of the few". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.76.139 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a "Unicode typeface"?

What are the criteria for inclusion in this article? The lead starts out mentioning fonts that attempt to cover all of Unicode, but very few of the fonts actually listed do attempt that. MPH 2B Damase and IndUni don't cover the CJK characters. The "SIL fonts" *together* cover a large fraction of Unicode, but no *single* SIL font does that, and we might as well say "the Adobe fonts" or "the Microsoft fonts" cover all of Unicode. Hanazono and M+ are Japanese-specific. The Ghostscript fonts are Latin-only. None of the purportedly "universal" fonts like Code2000 actually covers more than one CJK language correctly even if they have all the code points. Doing it right requires multiple glyphs per code points and metadata indicating which is which; people who actually read the languages in question can tell the difference. It seems that any font that is open-source (which is, technically, not even a meaningful concept for most fonts; they're drawn by hand and no source code exists), and covers some part of Unicode no matter how single-language-specific, could be listed in this article. So this article is in principle an eternally-growing list of all the free fonts in the world. Since there are better "list of fonts" articles elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as Unicode typefaces, I wonder whether this article should exist at all. 207.161.99.42 (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The article Unicode font (the tables distinguish between proprietary and free and open-source) in conjunction with the navbox Template:Free and open source typography should be enough. ScotXW (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Google "Noto"

How about Google's "Noto" family? They use an Apache license. I can't tell how far they are on the way to their huge goal, covering ALL of unicode, but Google certainly has the resources for it. Here's the project page: http://code.google.com/p/noto/ --84.164.117.30 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Diavlo font

The Diavlo font réferenced in section "Other" is not an open-source font. See http://www.exljbris.com/diavlo.html and http://www.exljbris.com/eula.html. I've set an [dubious] template because i don't know wich template is the best to use in this case (perhaps simply remove the link to this font ?). In addition, the comment « often used in web comics » need reference. Gnujsa (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mozilla Fira Sans

Shouldn't Fira Sans be included as well?

Ceplm (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbola font

I removed George Douros' Symbola font because it is no longer available under a free license, but it and all other fonts on the Unicode Fonts for Ancient Scripts site are now licensed under a very restrictive license that prohibits commercial or educational use. JMyrleFuller restored the entry for Symbola because v. 10 and earlier were freely licensed. However, as George Douros does not provide download links for previous versions of his fonts, there is no easy way for users to get hold of the previous freely-licensed fonts, so I see no point in listing Symbola in this article. I therefore propose removing Symbol from this article. BabelStone (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As the creation of George Douros's fonts never followed the open-source model they should never have appeared on this list. However, the same applies to several or most other fonts listed here that are not the result of open collaboration. Maybe we should create a List of free Unicode typefaces for them, though we already have List of typefaces#Unicode fonts and Category:Free software Unicode typefaces. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)