Noto unified font

Philippe Verdy verdy_p at
Sun Oct 9 18:57:05 CDT 2016

I did not receive the message from David Starner you are quoting, it was
probably not sent to this list but I did not received it privately (not
even in my "spam mailbox").
Anyway I agree with your response, David Starner has a strange
interpretation of this common word (notably in the context what I used it
after "any").

However In my sense a product is the result of an process requiring an
active participation. The webster definition is a bit larger (and also
match with the meaning of the term "produit" in French, which also includes
results of natural processes such as apples or ashes from a volvano: the
term emphases the fact that there's a process of transformation from a
state to another and that the result has an added value, but of course not
necessarily a financial value by itself or a financial cost).

Here were' speaking about software (or structured data) which is always the
result of an active process going from an idea to some implementation and
its advertizing and distribution. It always has a financial cost, but this
cost is already shared and spread with the means we use to access or
distribute this result, or discuss and improve it. It also has a finanial
cost given the time devoted to make it (time is money: if you're not paid
for it, it will cost you in terms of the money you don't collect for that
time not spent on other tasks, but it also means the time gained by others
easily using the result with low costs that they will still have to support
themselves; only to receive this email, you've spent money for your FAI and
paid the bill for the electricity and spent time on your computer whose
aging will require you to change it in some months or years when it will no
longer be usable for the tools you need everyday on it).

Open sourcing a software or data or graphic design, or artistic product, or
a font here is a way to share and split the costs to smaller amounts that
more people can support, instead on giving all the money to a single
producer, assuming also all risks when investing in it for the creation,
production, distribution and support., it eliminates single points of
failure or defects by allowing more freedom for the replacement or
servicing, with lower losses and risks taken by the participants to this
process. It allows anyone participating in less tasks, that are less
compelx to them, and then delegate the rest to others in mutual
cooperations. Generally it also allows faster developements and easier
adaptations by varying methods. And instread of investing time in a single
activity, we invest time in many more, just when we need them or when we
think we may be useful and more efficient in some limited domains.

In the open sourcing processes, you have to be confident that people will
help you and you'll help them, but not just in a one-to-one relation with
direct returns and in timely delays (like in commercial contracts). You
don't order people to do things for you, you don't pay them directly, you
are also never required to donate something in exchange immediately. The
benefits are only there because you are part of the process and because
everyone gets more than what he donates (the total added value is then
larger than in private commercial relations). We are not just consumers but
also producers and creators in a collective work where the goal is largely
focused on actual needs and usages. All people like to be creative, and
it's always intereting to see many people adding their own creativity to a
project, for things we would have not imagined ourself or not expected that
they would find smarter solutions than ours.

In fact it is for the same reason that we have developed collective laws
and have governments and elected delegates, or public services all around
the world (but as opposed to them, there's no required tax to pay, no dated
bills, even if we still have rules to obey: the licence terms for which we
also want to be supported by collective laws protecting these terms against
unfairness or against abuses).

2016-10-09 21:28 GMT+02:00 James Kass <jameskasskrv at>:

> David Starner responded,
> >> The word "free" when applied to any product means "free of charge".
> >
> > Using the word "product" sort of biases your argument, does it not?
> Webster's defines "product" as something produced by nature, industry,
> or art.  So an apple is a product whether it's a wild apple, a
> cultivated apple, or a road apple.  Software is also a product, and as
> with any product, it's either free or for sale.
> > ... it seems to be a problem more frequently of people getting
> > annoyed than people getting confused.
> Isn't confusion annoying?
> Best regards,
> James Kass
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list