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

[Khaled Hosny]

FRN, IMO, puts unnecessary restrictions on users of libre fonts to solve
and just complicates things (more so on the web) for no to very marginal
benefit. What issues FRN is trying to solve are half technical; change
in font metrics can cause text reflow, but technical issues ask for
technical not legal solutions (e.g. bundle the fonts with your document,
or even embed them which some thing Microsoft Office supported for years
and now Libre Office as well). The other half is the artistic integrity,
which I, obviously, find it all nonsense, fonts are functional utilities
not works of art, if I’m making a piece of art I’d use CC-By-NC-ND
or something like that.

Incidentally I don’t like the “not sold by itself” clause either, but
since FSF’s idea of bundling a simple hello world applications makes it
practically non-existent, I’m OK with it.

Basically the only reason I use OFL for my fonts is because it is the
most widely used copyleft license for fonts which allows for easy mixing
and sharing between fonts, but I have never been a big fan of it myself.

Regards,
Khaled

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:49:33AM -0700, Vernon Adams wrote:
> Erm… 
> I think it, because i see clear evidence of it :)
> 
> The RFN part was probably not conceived as a copyleft component of the OFL. My point though, is that it can (under certain circumstances) also be used to preserve certain freedoms, more than it may ever restrict freedoms.
> 
> Do you see that the RFN can restricts a font's freedom? I'm interested to hear thoughts on that, as i'm still grappling with all this.
> 
> -v
> 
> 
> On 23 May 2013, at 07:40, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org> wrote:
> 
> > Why do you think the font name is so important that to keep using it
> > those evil corporations will go out of their ways and sign deals with
> > you? (not to mention that it is the copyleft part of OFL that ensures
> > preservation of font freedom, not the RFN part).