This font was made with glyphr. In a conventional program (Let's say that this program is made in C), for it to be considered open source, the c file that contains the code has to be distributed, outside of that, there is the compilation file and additionally a README, in fonts it is different, the majority use a different programming language from one to the other to create the typography, and the only way I see that a font made in fontforge can be considered open source is for it to be shared the sfd file that fontforge generates when saving the font, this file is editable in a code editor, not like other files such as otf or ttf, which are directly binary
The thing is, could an otf or ttf file be considered a file suitable for the free modification and redistribution of a font? That's the question I have, because for me, sharing any of those file formats is not enough for a font to be considered open source, especially since those two files are binary. Would I have to share the sfd file that fontforge generates so that the font can be open source? Because that file is editable through a code editor
This font was made with glyphr. In a conventional program (Let's say that this program is made in C), for it to be considered open source, the c file that contains the code has to be distributed, outside of that, there is the compilation file and additionally a README, in fonts it is different, the majority use a different programming language from one to the other to create the typography, and the only way I see that a font made in fontforge can be considered open source is for it to be shared the sfd file that fontforge generates when saving the font, this file is editable in a code editor, not like other files such as otf or ttf, which are directly binary