What should be done with OS-specific fonts?

[GarryPatchett]

Some OSes come with fonts installed as standard that are not installed as standard on other OSes. One example is "Minion Pro" that's in OSX but not Windows. (And I think I'm right that "Helvetica" isn't a Linux font, and Helvetica is used quite a lot.)

These fonts are usually copyrighted and can't be exchanged - legally at least - with other people using other OSes.

Most fonts can of course be obtained if people want to pay for them but that's not usually an option for someone who just wants to make a one-off document.

How should users treat these fonts? Should they not use them, or should they still use them but mark the document as OS-specific? Or should people be told not to use OS-specific fonts?

Also, on a related point, how can a user know if the font was part of a standard installation? They may be using a machine that used to be someone else's or they may simply not know where the font came from.

This might sound like I'm being a bit picky at this early stage but if someone uploads a copyrighted font - by mistake of course - then there could be some nasty legal issues to deal with later on.

All I'm trying to do is think of what can go wrong before it does go wrong. It's nice to have a backup plan but it's better to make sure you don't need it!

[aoloe]

I think that only fonts that can be freely distributed should be used in the sample documents.

And all used fonts should be included.

We could also provide a package of "basic" good free fonts and invite the document creators to use those fonts. (see #9)

So: Helvetica and Minion Pro cannot be used in the sample documents.

And if somebody includes a reference (or the whole font!) to a non-free-enough font, we should just edit the file and remove it (or refuse the pull request / not add the zip content as is).

[GarryPatchett]

I agree: Only freely-available fonts should be used.

I like the idea of having a recommended/standard set of fonts.

Having a recommended set of fonts will help to keep the number of fonts included in a sample document down to a minimum. If there's a standard Sans Serif and a standard Serif font then people can install those and know that most of the documents will look like they should even if they don't want to install the other fonts related to the documents.

If a standard Serif font is used for things like article headings and a standard Sans Serif font is used for things like body text then people downloading the document can know at a glance how the document is formatted.

People can, of course, change the fonts to whatever they want once they've downloaded the document but a standard set of fonts will give the whole collection a more consistent look and feel. A consistent look between the documents will make them look more like a proper collection rather than just a dumping ground for random stuff. Also, a user will be more confident using a document if it looks like something they've already worked on.

While the set of "web-safe fonts" - i.e. Arial, Courier New and Times New Roman - might be part of most OS installations their implementation won't be totally consistent across those OSes. For instance, the "q" character in Times New Roman on one machine might not be exactly the same as the "q" character in Times on another machine. A small difference but it might matter to some people.

Also, the web-safe fonts usually don't come in very many variants - light, extra bold italic, etc. - so they're not very versatile.