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

[Vernon Adams]

On 4 Jun 2013, at 09:27, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:

> On 4 June 2013 12:05, Vernon Adams <vern at newtypography.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> My point is not really to do with licensing (i know fonts can be embedded under the OFL). But, i'm aware that embedding has not really been seen as a 'best practise' way of distributing libre fonts. When i say distributing, i mean *spreading them around*, not simply *allowing them to be used*.
> 
> By definition embedding is the opposite of spreading them around.

Yes. So how best could embedding also become a better way of spreading them around?

You are probably mostly right in the replies below. However, the Edge etc services are 'distributing' fonts as (a) webfonts, used by css linkage etc and (b) base64 encoded Woff files placed in the users browser cache.
(a) works well. (b) really sucks. takes extra effort and know-how to pull a full, non-subsetted font, get at that pulled base64'd font, and eventually, be able to use it for e.g. a print project.

So my point is with (b). I would want my fonts to come out the other end of (b) still fully marked it as a Free font, and not as a font that is some sort of orphan.  If OFL fonts are going to be increasingly distributed in this way, i think we have to rely more on standalone font files and much less on license text files, font log text files, etc.

-v

> 
>> Now, i know some designers will say that the 'most proper' way to distribute libre
>> fonts is as full-on source package, and then there is the Google webfont
>> approach; binaries up front, git repos of source files at the back. etc etc.
> 
> I think source is about access, not mandatory provision - and access
> to improvements so they can be integrated upstream.
> 
>> What i'm suggesting, may be seen as "lowering the bar" :) but i'm interested
>> in ideas  turn the sort of situation some of us have with Adobe, font squirrel,
>> etc, on it's head;  instead of seeing these situations as problems (because
>> these services are not making freely available binary files, or source files),
> 
> I see no problem with them - I see a problem with the RFN preventing
> the wide use of RFNd fonts.
> 
> They are making freely available binary files for all fonts under the
> OFL, because the OFL requires that all copies be under the OFL.
> 
> They don't provide source files, but their changes don't improve the
> font, so its not important.
> 
>> i wonder if it's possible to see advantages instead. One advantage i see is
>> that a font served as a single font object (and not a bundle of license texts,
>> source files etc) is way more mobile, free (as in bird), and able to spread
>> virally. It may be simple a case of adding licensing info with font metadata,
>> and not relying on bundles text files.
> 
> This adds to filesize and so I want to strip it from the web fonts.
> 
>> ps - someone should build a web service, that pulls the obfuscated
>> OFL's fonts from the Edge / Typekit etc servers, parses them, prepares
>> them, and then builds them back into a OTF, TTF, and a @font-face
>> kit for easy download. Would be cool ;)
> 
> How are they obfuscated?
> 
> I see no value in this; the changes Typekit makes that are meaningful
> (as we've seen with Rosario) are done in collaboration with the
> designers, and the changes FontSquirrel make are available to anyone
> in their kit builder.