- Issue created by @pixelite
- π¬π§United Kingdom james.h
The new Drupal brand looks great, however, here are some refinements I propose:
The typeface ZT Gatha doesnβt appear to be under an open-source licence. Instead, it appears to use a licence on 1001fonts.com which is free for commercial use, but only includes two font weights (bold and semi bold). Other font foundries offer less ZT Gatha font weights for free, providing only Semi Bold for free (this includes the author of the font, Zelow Type). The four weights which are shown in the Drupal re-brand deck wouldnβt be available for use without purchasing a paid-for font licence.
A secondary typeface for body copy would benefit the design system, especially if the selected typeface has wide language support. Certain fonts available online under the Open Font Licence include support for almost every writing system in use throughout the world. This would support the Drupal brand worldwide. An example of this would be IKEA using the βNotoβ type family: https://fonts.google.com/noto.
- πΊπΈUnited States mayankguptadotcom Charlotte
@pixelite - will it be possible to share the rebrand deck link to be able to share the feedback or review it please.
- π¨π¦Canada Kushneet
Attended bi-weekly check-in on 30 November 2023 to discuss feedback for the new Drupal brand
- Status changed to Closed: outdated
6 months ago 7:18pm 16 May 2024 - Assigned to hestenet
- Status changed to Needs work
4 months ago 8:35pm 17 July 2024 - πΊπΈUnited States hestenet Portland, OR πΊπΈ
Repurposing this issue for the ZT Gatha font licensing question - as the rest of the font feedback and implementation is covered by #3447679: [META] Apply the new brand to Drupal.org β
Some good news on this front!
The full rights and ownership of ZT_Gatha have been purchased from its creator Zelow Type and it is being donated to the Drupal Association. @Shawn Perritt at Acquia took care of this, and we thank them for the purchase/donation!
This means we own the full rights and can re-license and redistribute it however we choose.
My inclination is to suggest we release under OFL - but I'm open to feedback and suggestions.
Setting to 'Needs work' while we decide on the license and where/how we need to document that