Creative Commons licensing

[rk]

I'm sorry to say, but I won't be using FlowType.js at work, much as I'd love to. And all because your licensing requires an attribution link. The license header in the script and its links in FlowType.js aren't enough? I know that as a developer when I want to see how someone did something on the 'net I use View Source and check out their CSS/JS.

We aren't about to link to a script that requires us to publicly post a link on the sites we design. This library is such a tiny part of the overall design it doesn't deserve the same recognition as our link for "Web Design by..." does, when we did all the work.

I suggest that you pick a more permissive license than CC-SA.

[johnbarrierwilson]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for expressing your concern. We realized this was a poor choice when we launched it, as we received much feedback similar to yours. We also completely understand where you are coming from. With that said, please keep an eye on this repo today. We are planning on updating the license specifically for people like you.

Thanks again for letting us know!

[johnbarrierwilson]

Robert,

We just updated the licensing to MIT. Again, we apologize for the poor choice and hope that you will reconsider using FlowType.JS now. Please let us know if you have any other concerns or feedback.

[rk]

Thanks! We'll see if there are any suitable projects in the near future to use this with (if we do use it, I'll be sure to contact you and show it off).