(no title)
KeenFox | 6 years ago
https://public-sans.digital.gov/
Discussion of the font on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19607371
KeenFox | 6 years ago
https://public-sans.digital.gov/
Discussion of the font on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19607371
velcrovan|6 years ago
“Open-source licenses, like all software licenses, are only possible through assertion of copyright. Certain free-software advocates prefer to sidestep this inconvenient fact (akin to ‘keep your government hands off my Medicare’). For individual software authors, this usually poses no problem, because their copyright arises at the moment the work is created. Thus, they’re free to put their work under any license, including an open-source license.
“But US government employees are a special case. As a matter of federal law (17 USC § 105), they can’t assert copyright in their work. Public Sans is an inseparable mixture of copyrighted work (= the underlying Libre Franklin font) and uncopyrightable work (= the alterations made by the GSA). The GSA currently claims that Public Sans has been released under the OFL. But that’s impossible. To use this license, they’d first need to have a copyright in their contributions. But they don’t.”
— Matthew Butterick (type designer + lawyer) https://tinyletter.com/mbutterick/letters/the-curious-case-o...
acdha|6 years ago
Here's the upstream issue:
https://github.com/uswds/public-sans/issues/30
He also opened a separate issue claiming an Establishment clause violation because the OFL was created by https://www.sil.org/about:
https://github.com/uswds/public-sans/issues/31
KeenFox|6 years ago
anentropic|6 years ago