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

[Vernon Adams]

On 5 Jun 2013, at 08:50, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:

> On 5 June 2013 10:28, Vernon Adams <vern at newtypography.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure you can, the subsetting is done on the server…
>> 
>> erm.. so… i was right then :)  it sucks as a way of enabling fonts as "free and easy to obtain and use" ;p
> 
> Because it isn't the primary distribution point. The files are subsets
> of the fonts from the primary distribution point, and have no
> improvements. I don't see a problem here.

I don't see a problem either. I see an opportunity to create more distribution points, and have as many distributions as possible acting as primary distribution points :)

Relying on some central, canonical, distro point to be the gatekeeper of licensing info strikes me as a weakness. Far better imo that as many of the distribution points as possible are a primary source of the licensing info.


> 
>> But anyway, the important thing is that this IS how libre fonts are being distributed more and more.
> 
> I don't see this as important.


The OFL-connected issues we have been discussing, are a result of a gap between technology (how fonts are being used) and the licensing model (how fonts are protected). That gap will get bigger; i suspect we will see fonts needing to become even more mobile and 'free-er' and that will stretch the limits of the current libre licensing model even more. IMO making the licensing more integral to the font object, and more simple, and more permissive, is the way forward. A font object that has a trail of docs left 'back at base', a trademark filed here, with the whiff of a law suit in the wings, and limits on 'embedding types a, b , x and z' is not going to be particularly 'free'.


ps; i'm thinking, not arguing :)


-vern