Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Emoji Project Wants Money For Icons
Kagetsuki writes "There's a project on KickStarter for a Free and Open set of emoji [the graphical emoticon glyph set which has a block reserved in Unicode]. Currently there are no full sets of Emoji that are completely free (as in beer and and freedom), so if this project gets funded it will be the first and only set of emoji that can, say, be distributed with FLOSS Linux/BSD/GNU systems. Not to mention anyone will be able to incorporate them into any project without any restrictive conditions."
And lest you think emoji devoid of literary value, reader coondoggie points out that the Library of Congress has just welcomed (or at least allowed) onto its vaunted shelves an all-emoji version of Melville's Moby Dick, created with the help of translators working through Amazon's Mechanical Turk.
Okay, I understand that I'm old and grumpy, but . . .
The point of emoticons are that they are simple ASCII text that convey basic emotional context. Emoji are not "emoticons". They're just tiny pictures. Are you seriously telling me that a tiny picture of a whale is in any way related to an emoticon? You know how you can tell these have no relation to emoticons? Because their ultimate stretch goal in the kickstarter is to create more than 800 of the little images and I'm pretty sure there aren't 800 emotions on which to base emoticons. Let's just call them "tiny little pictures for children to use on their phones and in forum messages to be obnoxious".
I'll help fund a kickstarter that aims to eradicate every form of chat of these annoying things. I used to have forums where people would use these constantly. Since I didn't include them by default, they used these idiotic services that let them embed emoticons on any website forum, as long as you also spammed their banner while you were doing it. I quickly wrote some code to filter all of that out, too.
Our licensing model will be the same as the Font Awesome project which is a combination of the SIL Open Font License, MIT License and the CC 3.0 License.
Seriously? You can't pick one simple license, its got to be 3?
You guys and you're "freedom". It does not mean what you think it does. More freedom pretty much explicitly requires LESS license, not more.
Software licenses are the opposite of freedom. They define a list of restrictions.
If you want it to be 'free', then just BSD license it (MIT is fine since its in your list) and fucking stop.
Multi-license crap is only for when you're trying to deal with some retarded license like GPL and its purpose built anti-compatibility/virus license being included in your project.
If you think you need three license options to define freedom you do not in any way understand the meaning of freedom and you're just warping it around to mean restrictions.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
So half of your money won't even go to the project!
That is not a scam that is business model [in fact its most business models]. My favourite example of this is Apple make no iPhones...not one; zero; zilch; nada. They get about 40% Net profit on their phones....Foxconn who do the building make 2% profit.
The reality is if they are not dependent on one stream of revenue...both projects are more likely to succeed.