4 ms·
Interestingly strange they wouldn't just choose an existing open source font that got along with their license. I guess even you've got Google's wallet behind y
by donatj 10y ago
Interestingly strange they wouldn't just choose an existing open source font that got along with their license. I guess even you've got Google's wallet behind you it opens a lot of doors.
- gribbly 10y agoI agree, but then again the end result is another open source font family available for everyone to use, so I'm not complaining.
- dx034 10y agoIt confuses me even more considering that Google is behind it. Google just announced fonts for all unicode characters. [1] Why create an extra font that will cause every app to look like a "Go" app instead of a native Windows/Linux/Mac app? [1] https://www.google.com/get/noto/ https://www.google.com/get/noto/
- dsymonds 10y agoGoogle isn't behind it. Some Google employees who work on Go are behind it (well, and Chuck Bigelow too). But as keeps getting said: it's about the licensing.
- dx034 10y agoAs I understand it, some of the main developers are being paid by Google to develop the language. The main page is also hosted by Google. Even though the language is technically open, that makes it a Google language for me. Not in a negative sense, it means that they should profit from it. I still don't understand why they would have to license the Google fonts for testing and using them as standard fonts. EDIT: I just saw that Noto is available with an open license, just not the Go license. But I still think Google would relicense it to Go, seems like something Google would do in this case.
- dsymonds 10y agoI was referring to the Go font, not Go itself; I thought that's what you were referring to.