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

[Vernon Adams]

> 
> 
>> Reserving the name of the font, sets down a licensing condition
>> that must be met. If that condition is not met then the license is breached.
>> This is clear when dealing with 1 or 2 a large corporations (who may
>> not be interested in preserving the font's freedom); as it gives  3 clear
>> solutions for them to use their own modified version of a font;
>> 1. Follow the OFL, use the font, change the font's name , and preserve
>> the font's freedom.
>> 2. Follow the OFL, use the font, get an agreement from me to use the
>> RFN, and preserve the font's freedom.
>> 3. Buy an embedding license from me, use the font non-free, and i
>> preserve the font's freedom.
> 
> 4. Don't use the fonts, because this is all too complicated.

Yes, of course. "Don't use it" is assumed. I hope we would all prefer (4) to the font being used outside of the terms of the OFL?
Ps is it *really* too complicated?

> 
>> Now, with a few large corporations, this is highly manageable.
> 
> I am not sure about that.

Neither am i :)

> 
>> But what happens with the mass of individual users and or small
>> businesses, who maybe are also making modifications and serving the font ?
>> Of course, i can simply decide to ignore the potential mass of
>> individual breaches of non-changing of RFN's, and instead simply
>> focus on the few 'major' breaches. Bit of a license fudge tho imo.
> 
> Are you aware of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel ? Allowing
> infringement can make it hard to complain about infringement.

Yep

> 
>> The argument i have with myself is; why do i feel the use of RFN's
>> is not necessary when dealing with masses of individual users,
>> but i feel i want it there in case of corporate users?
>> It could be that i see that corporate users could easilly afford to
>> buy (modestly priced) RFN agreements from me (if they need to
>> use the fonts), thus 'giving something back' to the designer of
>> the free fonts they are using, and funding future fonts.
> 
> Asserting a trademark will carry the same requirement for corporate
> users to license the trademark, and corporations already have well
> established processes and budgets for licensing trademarks. OFL-RFN is
> unusual, complex, and less likely to open that (meagre) jackpot.

Yes. Like i said i'm still grappling and questioning myself about all this.



> 
> Cheers
> Dave