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

[Nathan Willis]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Eric Schrijver <eric at authoritism.net>wrote:

> On 05/23/2013 07:36 PM, Nathan Willis wrote:
>
>> I'm _generally_ in favor of pursuing the trademark front as an
>> alternative to RFN (although obviously at this point it's a bit
>> experimental).  I wonder, though, if recommending trademarks would be
>> problematic because of the differences in trademark law between
>> jurisdictions.
>>
>> I don't know global TM law; maybe it's so convoluted that ever country
>> would require its own FAQ.  But maybe it's not...
>>
>
> Hey girls and guys,
>
> just some practical points:
>
> the RFN works great against a usual argument of type designers who are
> afraid that open sourcing their work will lead to forks of ‘questionable
> quality’—you can say that they have control over ‘their’ version of the
> font because other fonts need a distinguishly different name.
>
> the RFN doesn’t work great in terms of the Git/github model of
> development, because basically in the cycle forking, modifying, submitting
> a pull request, you are already violating the RFN.
>
> At the same time, the fact that there are many versions of one artwork /
> typeface / software with the same name can be difficult. I think for
> instance of the many versions of GitX floating around. That’s where I like
> the RFN as well.
>
> In theory, I would like a soft RFN that forces you to change the name if
> you don’t intend to contribute your changes back to the font you forked. [1]
>
> Trademarks, on the other hand, to me seem pretty ludicrous, but I might be
> misinformed. As far as I know, they cost money, and require active
> litigation to keep them valid (i.e., contrary to copyright, if you don’t
> activily sue for trademark infringements you risk to loose the trademark
> protection).
> Can someone outline how asking for a trademark would work for an indepent
> Font designer and how it would benefit them?
>
>
In the US (at least), trademarks do not cost money.  Like copyright is
"automatic" when you create a work, trademark is "automatic" when you
advertise / publicize your brand.  However, also like copyright, there is a
"registered trademark" option that DOES cost money, and lets you somehow
get more legal muscle.  The specifics there I don't recall.

As for litigation, litigation is only necessary if someone violates your
trademark and doesn't stop when you ask them to.  That's not different that
copyright either.  Worst-case scenario in copyright is a lawsuit; trademark
is the same.

What I think *is* missing and needed is a clear "trademark usage
guideline."  The author gets to set those rules; they would be analogous to
a copyright license -- they set out your rules for the trademark, as the
OFL sets out the license for the work itself.  But so far there's not a set
of discrete boilerplate TM-usage-docs akin to (for example) the CC
licenses.  Having some simple options for that might make deploying a
trademark on your font a less confusing option.

At least in the US.  Still don't know about anywhere else.

Nate


> Good night!
>
> xx
> E
>
> [1] BTW, hard forks, forks that don’t contribute back to the thing forked
> from, seem more desirable in fonts then in software. Like Gill is a fork of
> Johnston, or Helvetica of Akzidensk—that’s cool, and something made a lot
> more easy by an ecosystem of OFL fonts.
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
nathan.p.willis
nwillis at glyphography.com
identi.ca/n8
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/attachments/20130523/6a295882/attachment.html>