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

[Dave Crossland]

On 5 June 2013 12:18, Vernon Adams <vern at newtypography.co.uk> wrote:
> I see an opportunity to create more distribution points, and have as many
> distributions as possible acting as primary distribution points :)

I do not.

> 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.

The OFL requires licensing information to be available in all distribution.

>>> 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'

This is incredibly vague. What specifically do you mean by 'more mobile'?

> 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 :)

I'd like concrete suggestions about what to do :)

-- 
Cheers
Dave