I'm usually only concerned with assets on this site but I have to agree with bluecarrot16. I can't recommend any of these tools to people that could really benefit from them because I'm always waiting for the attribution to be fixed before I do.
I'm a bit embarrassed that I failed to notice the authors.txt here doesn't have all the information it should, either.
Pretty much, yeah. Kinda stupid, right? I mean, you'd have to have permission to use the Microsoft font in the first place, and making bitmaps using the font would need to be within the font's terms of use (essentially every font's usage terms includes this, though), but yeah. Under current US law* and currently accepted font licenses, that would be legal. Not ethical though, which is why I was harping on OGA's policy regarding loopholes and the author's implicit wishes.
If it comes to light this author did not intend the font to be derived into a spritesheet and distributed CC0, I may reverse my decision. And, in fact, I would feel more comfortable if this were licensed OGA-BY instead, in order to enforce the attribution for the original author.
*(This site is hosted in the US, so although copyright laws in other jurisdictions are relevant, US law is the primary focus.)
Listen to what I'm saying: Be cautious about that attitude. Here on OGA, we generally go a step further than the letter of the law. If it does not appear to be in the wishes of the author, we will not allow it even if it is legal to do so. Yes, you are legally allowed to share it, but that does not necessarily mean we will allow it to be shared here if it looks like it is taking advantage of a loophole.
To the best of my knowledge at this point, this is in the clear and it is welcome here, even with our extra-stuck-up standards :) but not simply because it is technically legal. That is all I was cautioning about.
Yes, though be cautious about that. The fact that it is an image and a derivative is not the entirety of why this is allowed. It is also that the terms implicitly allow for 'pretty much anything' while explicitly saying "the font itself" as the component that is still subject to restrictions.
That's what I'm saying: "freeware" seems intended as neither; a (none) license. Though the last blurb may still apply to 'freeware' even if 'personal' and 'commercial' don't. Of all the fonts on fontspace, some are listed as "Commercial", some are "Personal", and still others are "Demo" or "Freeware" etc., so although they only define two terms-of-use in the FAQ, there are several others that seem intentionally left less-than-well-defined.
The font is the "software" itself. The instructions used by an operating system to draw the typeface on the screen or printer paper.
The typeface is the set of stylized shapes that form the letters and glyphs. The image above uses the typeface, but it isn't a font at all, it's an image.
I'm sure we can help identify the origin of any of the sprites you are missing information on. They are all in sprite sheet form, correct?
I'm usually only concerned with assets on this site but I have to agree with bluecarrot16. I can't recommend any of these tools to people that could really benefit from them because I'm always waiting for the attribution to be fixed before I do.
I'm a bit embarrassed that I failed to notice the authors.txt here doesn't have all the information it should, either.
All sources are pre-2019, so they were all originally CC0. :)
Cool. Thank you. :)
Pretty much, yeah. Kinda stupid, right? I mean, you'd have to have permission to use the Microsoft font in the first place, and making bitmaps using the font would need to be within the font's terms of use (essentially every font's usage terms includes this, though), but yeah. Under current US law* and currently accepted font licenses, that would be legal. Not ethical though, which is why I was harping on OGA's policy regarding loopholes and the author's implicit wishes.
If it comes to light this author did not intend the font to be derived into a spritesheet and distributed CC0, I may reverse my decision. And, in fact, I would feel more comfortable if this were licensed OGA-BY instead, in order to enforce the attribution for the original author.
*(This site is hosted in the US, so although copyright laws in other jurisdictions are relevant, US law is the primary focus.)
Looks cool.
I'm sorry, but I have to ask you to list all of the sources for these. They (especially the pixabay ones) have to be verified.
Haha, I also have the attitude of a lawyer. I know just what you mean. And thank you for being understanding.
Listen to what I'm saying: Be cautious about that attitude. Here on OGA, we generally go a step further than the letter of the law. If it does not appear to be in the wishes of the author, we will not allow it even if it is legal to do so. Yes, you are legally allowed to share it, but that does not necessarily mean we will allow it to be shared here if it looks like it is taking advantage of a loophole.
To the best of my knowledge at this point, this is in the clear and it is welcome here, even with our extra-stuck-up standards :) but not simply because it is technically legal. That is all I was cautioning about.
Yes, though be cautious about that. The fact that it is an image and a derivative is not the entirety of why this is allowed. It is also that the terms implicitly allow for 'pretty much anything' while explicitly saying "the font itself" as the component that is still subject to restrictions.
That's what I'm saying: "freeware" seems intended as neither; a (none) license. Though the last blurb may still apply to 'freeware' even if 'personal' and 'commercial' don't. Of all the fonts on fontspace, some are listed as "Commercial", some are "Personal", and still others are "Demo" or "Freeware" etc., so although they only define two terms-of-use in the FAQ, there are several others that seem intentionally left less-than-well-defined.
The font is the "software" itself. The instructions used by an operating system to draw the typeface on the screen or printer paper.
The typeface is the set of stylized shapes that form the letters and glyphs. The image above uses the typeface, but it isn't a font at all, it's an image.
Pages