Add The Neue Black

[emmamarichal]

Hello,

Here are the changes made according to GF spec:

• Repo structure updated (OFL, authors, contributors, font info)
• Sources updated according the new Glyphset (some accented glyphs added)
• Vertical metrics added
• Fonts exported and tested

As for the name of the font, we have to name the style 'Regular'. I invite you to read the discussion on this topic:
google/fonts#4372 (comment)

I removed the RFN from OFL.txt and sources. You can merge if you approve.
If you don't want the RFN removal, you can read what Dave said about it, and I'll re-add it back in this PR before you merge.

Cheers!

[emmamarichal]

Hello @micahbrich and @alerque 👋

I just found this PR, could you take a look?
The only thing that blocks is the RFN issue, Dave proposes 3 solutions here: google/fonts#4372 (comment)

@micahbrich @alerque how do you want to handle the RFN - there's 3 ways forward, in order of my preference, you can remove the RFN, or, you can give Google permission to use the RFN, or, Google can onboard it with a different name (which is not ideal). Please confirm :)

Let me know what you think, so we can move the project forward :)
Cheers!

[micahbrich]

Woof. I really can't merge this, sorry @emmamarichal.

If you'd like to contribute improvements without moving the fontship file or adding unnecessary text docs or removing the RFN, we'd happily accept improvements.

Removing the RFN is a no-go — as far as I know, that would strip away all rights anyone has. Is there any compromise here that benefits everyone? Why is this necessary? Is there any way for Google to contribute without taking rights away or making a fork that would give no credit to the original designers and end up confusing everyone?

[emmamarichal]

Hello @micahbrich,

I'm sorry, I didn't specify, but I work for GF, for the fonts onboarding, with @RosaWagner.
I worked on this repo as it has been suggested to add The Neue Black to the Google Fonts catalog: google/fonts#4372

As far as .txt are concerned, we follow templates to try to have similar repos, which can be easily used by fonts onboarders or contributors.

For the RFN, maybe @davelab6 can explain it better than me?

[RosaWagner]

Hi @micahbrich, thanks for answering this PR.

The RFN is not about credit to authors, those are specified in .txt files: AUTHORS.txt and CONTRIBUTORS.txt, the copyright string in the license refers to those files. The RFN protects the font from being forked and released under the same name by someone else. It means that anyone modifying the font (even metadata) should release the modification under another name. GF can’t publish a font with an RFN without the explicit written consent of all the authors because the font served by the API is subsetted and they don’t want to fork and give another name for that, it would not give enough credit to the authors.

Although if the authors really want to keep the RFN, we have a process for that (basically an email from the authors giving consent). If you are interested, I can send you the template email for that.

You can also say that you don’t want this font on GF, no one is trying to give away rights here. You can simply answer to this issue so we can close and have an archive.