The ofl has no upgrade model, the authors have no resources to make an update, and believe the license provides for this situation. I will try to make getting addition permission privately a convenient process for those who must seek such permission, for rfns and trademarks. <div class="gmail_quote">On May 29, 2013 1:47 PM, "Vernon Adams" <<a href="mailto:vern@newtypography.co.uk">vern@newtypography.co.uk</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I can understand this, except for one thing; Surely it would not be 'diluting' the OFL to reshape it to bring more clarity to the licensing of this whole 'minor modification' space that webfont services are opening up? Imo the OFL needs to be ever so slightly tweaked, but only to better protect the freedom of OFL'd fonts. That's not a dilution, that's a re-concentration. On the other hand, expecting designers to rely on an external triggers such as 'trademarks' to plug this issue, does seem to dilute the license. -vernon On 29 May 2013, at 05:05, Victor Gaultney <<a href="mailto:vtype@gaultney.org">vtype@gaultney.org</a>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Perhaps the authors of the OFL could create such a text? >> >> I think Victor has been quite clear that he's not at all interested in >> diluting the OFL model like this, > > Yes - for the reasons Dave mentions, and the basic conceptual difficulty of defining and evaluating what changes would be allowed. </blockquote></div>