[OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Mer 5 juin 2013 19:02, Dave Crossland a écrit :
> On 5 June 2013 12:59, vernon adams <vern at newtypography.co.uk> wrote:
>> from the OFL definition, the uses of OFL fonts by Adobe, Monotype, etc
>> IS 'embedding',
>
> No its not! :)
>
> Its LINKING not embedding. The obfuscation that the FAQ mentions is a
> distraction. Web fonts are LINKED unless they are including inside a
> HTML file in a data url.

The embedding clause applies to the document, not to the embedded font
bits. The OFL clauses do not apply *to the rest of the document*. They
still apply to the embedded font bits.

If the OFL FAQ now hints it is not the case, there is a serious
misunderstanding and lots of organisations are going to re-evaluate their
OFL by-in. Because that makes the free aspects of the license trivially
bypassable.

If you embed a font in a document, the embedded bits must still have all
the properties needed to satisfy the OFL (that means the embedding process
should never strip the legal metadata when embeding the font)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot