[OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper

[Vernon Adams]

I am starting to prefer that the default position of RFN's in the OFL should be preserved as it is now. Is the other option, to make the default 'no RFN'? IMO the default of the RFN keeps a 'positive balance' in the court of the original designer. Remember there is allways the choice of specifically not using an RFN.

In the event of another party wishing to retain the RFN after modifications have been made, the simple solution is for that party to obtain an agreement with the copyright holder of the font to retain the RFN.

Or, is there something i am not understanding in this?  :)

-vernon


On 20 May 2013, at 08:00, Victor Gaultney <vweb at gaultney.org> wrote:

> Dear Google Fonts folks, 
> 
> Nicolas Spalinger and I, the maintainers of the SIL Open Font License, have posted a draft of an update to the OFL-FAQ (1.1-update3-draft). Although there are many small clarifications and refinements from version 1.1-update2, the main addition is a greatly expanded section related to web fonts. There is also a related discussion paper on Web Fonts and Reserved Font Names that deals with those issues in even more detail. Comments and feedback are welcome.
> 
> http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web_11update3draft
> http://scripts.sil.org/OFL_web_fonts_and_RFNs
> 
> We hope this helps to bring clarity to some of the many difficult issues related to web fonts and Reserved Font Names.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Victor Gaultney
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Google Font Directory Discussions
> http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss
> 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Font Directory Discussions" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
>