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

[Victor Gaultney]

On 7 Jun 2013, at 11:34, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> wrote:

> 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.

I don't think the FAQ hints at this at all.  If that is unclear please suggest how we can make that clear. See sections 1.11 through 1.15. Here is section 1.15. Note particularly the last sentence.

---

Question: 1.15 What about distributing fonts with a document? Within a compressed folder structure? Is it distribution, bundling or embedding?

Answer: Certain document formats may allow the inclusion of an unmodified font within their file structure which consists of a compressed folder containing the various resources forming the document (such as pictures and thumbnails). Including fonts within such a structure is understood as being different from embedding but rather similar to bundling (or mere aggregation) which the license explicitly allows. In this case the font is conveyed unchanged whereas embedding a font usually transforms it from the original format. The OFL does not allow anyone to extract the font from such a structure to then redistribute it under another license. The explicit permission to redistribute and embed does not cancel the requirement for the Font Software to remain under the license chosen by its author(s).

---

According to the OFL-FAQ, the definition of embedding is wrapped up in whether the font is ever intended to be used outside the document. At no point does the OFL apply to the rest of the document, nor does the OFL's control over the embedded font bits ever get nullified. The OFL always applies anytime the font bits are separated out of the document to be used as a standalone font again.

So if the person who is doing the embedding intends for others to be able to trivially separate out the font, or uses an embedding process that makes that simple, then they should be sure that the basic license metadata is also included. 

However the system works, if the font is somehow expected to be used outside the document it is originally distributed with, then that is really distribution, not embedding.

An example: Someone includes a reasonably complete font encoded as a base64 resource within a single HTML file. The resource is stored in the web browser cache. The server tracks that, and then does not include that resource in other pages within that session. That may sound like embedding, but since the font is intended to be split out and used by other docs, then that's really distribution.

V
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/attachments/20130607/10c47ad5/attachment-0001.html>