<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Eric Schrijver <<a href="mailto:eric@authoritism.net" target="_self">eric@authoritism.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="im">On 05/23/2013 07:36 PM, Nathan Willis wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> 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... </blockquote> </div> 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? </blockquote><div> 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 </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> 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. </blockquote></div> -- <div dir="ltr">nathan.p.willis <a href="mailto:nwillis@glyphography.com" target="_self">nwillis@glyphography.com</a> <a href="http://identi.ca/n8" target="_self">identi.ca/n8</a></div>