[OpenFontLibrary] Fwd: [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild

[Barry Schwartz]

Vernon Adams <vern at newtypography.co.uk> skribis:
> > This is a follow on to the recent thread "OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper" that Victor Gaultney started.
> > 
> > The OFL faq update draft and the way a few large foundries have started serving OFL'd webfonts brought to my attention the way OFL'd fonts were being used out there in the wild.  Alongside the big foundries serving OFL'd fonts as webfonts, there are also now a few sites cataloguing fonts, and then making them available for download as font files, or as @font-face 'kits'.  E.g. http://fontpro.com/ 
> > I think this is all 'great', but these sites are also often not distributing the OFL along with the distributed fonts. Also of course, these sites don't make available source files, and are often making modifications to metadata but then not following the OFL on distributing modified fonts.
> > 
> > So i'm interested how other designers of OFL'd fonts see this, or how people in the wider FLOSS community see this situation? Does anyone not care? Anyone really unhappy about it? Some times i shrug and think 'so what?', but then i am also very aware that ignoring these breaches 'en masse' does perhaps undermine the integrity of the OFL itself.  It's like we need a Libre Font Union or something ;) 

IMO FontPro should be more explicit about licenses, because they offer
downloads. I haven’t downloaded a package to see what comes with it.

My opinion on webfonts is that they are being embedded in a document
and so everything is A-OK. Nothing more is required.