Package Details: ttf-brill 2.06-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/ttf-brill.git (read-only)
Package Base: ttf-brill
Description: Brill Typeface by John Hudson for Brill Publishing House (TrueType)
Upstream URL: http://www.brill.com/about/brill-fonts
Licenses: custom
Submitter: jdarch
Maintainer: itsme
Last Packager: SunRed
Votes: 43
Popularity: 0.004985
First Submitted: 2014-11-06 20:22
Last Updated: 2015-07-25 01:16

Latest Comments

SunRed commented on 2016-08-12 13:32

I am disowning the package. It would be a pleasure if someone continues maintaining it.

bohoomil commented on 2014-11-07 06:07

Thank you for the info -- I'm updating right now.

jdarch commented on 2014-11-06 20:24

Brill Publishing has stopped distibuting the otf-version of this font, I have made a new package with the ttf-version they currently recommend.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-brill/

bohoomil commented on 2013-12-18 17:36

And here we go: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Infinality-bundle+fonts#Recommended_fonts_with_restricted_licenses

jdarch commented on 2013-12-17 10:45

I suppose prepackaging the font would in this case violate the license indeed.

I would say some promotion of the font would make sense. I believe John Hudson/Tiro Typeworks and of course Brill Publishers have done very well by creating this transitional (at least, that's what I would call it) serif typeface in four variants (roman, italic, bold and bold-italic, each containing a rather extended set of characters) and then making it available under Brill's non-commecial license. It deserves to be used.

bohoomil commented on 2013-12-12 19:14

Thanks for the clarification. Frankly, I am never sure how exactly I should understand the limits of 'redistribution': it seems that releasing a build script, like yours, may be considered a different action than going one step further and providing the end user with a pre-built package, even if a copy of a license has been included with it… From my pretty pragmatic standpoint, none of the two is detrimental to the licensor. However, proving validity of a legal regulation with a common sense is not a good (or safe) idea…

Anyway, I will try and recommend your work to those who may find it useful (via Arch Wiki for instance).

jdarch commented on 2013-12-12 14:44

I wouldn't mind at all. However I believe it is important for people to be aware of the limited license of this font (read the license locate on Brill's website (http://www.brill.com/about/brill-typeface/brill-fonts-end-user-license-agreement) or after installing the package in the license directory (/usr/share/licenses/otf-brill)), including a font in a larger pre-packaged collection could arguably distract from possible licensing issues.

jdarch commented on 2013-12-12 14:42

I wouldn't mind at all. However I believe it is important for people to be aware of the limited license of this font (read the license locate on Brill's website (http://www.brill.com/about/brill-typeface/brill-fonts-end-user-license-agreement) or after installing the package in the license directory (/usr/share/licenses/otf-brill)), including a font in a larger collection could arguably distract from possible licensing issues.

bohoomil commented on 2013-12-11 23:05

This is an excellent typeface. Would you mind my adding it to the infinality-bundle-fonts collection?