Bug 91150

Summary: Including additional Adobe open source fonts
Product: LibreOffice Reporter: Yousuf Philips (jay) (retired) <philipz85>
Component: ux-adviseAssignee: Not Assigned <libreoffice-bugs>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE    
Severity: enhancement CC: franciscoadriansanchez
Priority: medium    
Version: 5.0.0.0.alpha0+ Master   
Hardware: Other   
OS: All   
Whiteboard:
Crash report or crash signature: Regression By:
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 113305    

Description Yousuf Philips (jay) (retired) 2015-05-07 23:44:50 UTC
Presently, LibO bundles Adobe's Source Sans Pro font, but Adobe has also released a monospace variant (Source Code Pro) in 2012 and a serif variant (Source Serif Pro) in 2014. So are we intending to also bundle those as well?
Comment 1 Tomaz Vajngerl 2015-05-08 02:28:50 UTC
We already bundle "Source Code Pro" and we don't bundle "Source Serif Pro" because it doesn't yet support italics.

I myself would rather go with Noto family or Droid family and remove "Open Sans" (it is just a variation of "Droid Sans" - same as "Noto Sans" but without an "Open Serif" pair).
Comment 2 Francisco 2015-05-08 03:32:04 UTC
(In reply to Tomaz Vajngerl from comment #1)
> I myself would rather go with Noto family or Droid family and remove "Open
> Sans" (it is just a variation of "Droid Sans" - same as "Noto Sans" but
> without an "Open Serif" pair).

It is true that Noto and Open Sans are barely the same, though the second, if I remember correctly, has a bigger glif base. However, Droid Sans is different, even though the look similar. Simply print some long text with both and compare.
Comment 3 Adolfo Jayme Barrientos 2015-05-08 13:03:08 UTC
Jay, this was already discussed with UX, and was decided to go with WONTFIX (use search, please!). Besides, there is the concern of unnecessarily increasing installation footprint without adding much value. Bundling Noto (and removing Open Sans), for example, would be a better move, as it would allow us to support many more languages.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 79022 ***