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

[Vernon Adams]

On 6 Jun 2013, at 21:20, rfink0553 at gmail.com wrote:

> Lastly - Vernon, I'm on your side, as far as your aims are concerned. Totally. So don't get me wrong. But as somebody else wrote somewhere on this thread or one closely associated with this topic: where in the license does it say you've got to keep a pristine copy of the font up on a server somewhere available for download?

It doesn't. But i think it's should be assumed the following basic of Free Software;  if someone modifies Free Software then their modifications also are Free Software. To modify Free Software, but then to close your modifications off (even partly) is usually a breach of the Free Software community 'values', and maybe even sometimes a breach of a license. These redistributions of 'modified' Free web fonts via major foundry's font servers are maybe more 'on the edge'  of value breaches, rather than license breaches, the technical details of which have some "if's and but's".
Personally, i want to stay pragmatic about it all. Also i sense that there can be some sort of 'parasite / host' relationship that may be more interesting that anything else. These big web servers are potentially simply big hosts. Ideally i would like these hosts to hold downloadable files, but, in any case the current free serving off WOFFs, that can also be grabbed, is better than nothing. Something to work with, at least. I think the idea of browsers being able to 1-click download WOFFs from web pages, with conversion back to an OTF, post download, would be an awesome thing. I'd love to see such a tool appear in the next months. 

One aspect of the Adobe Edge service i still haven't worked out; and that is what files do they use as the 'source' of the OFL's files they are serving? The WOFF files that land in my browser cache, are from postscript outlines i assume. I guess they were not converted from Truetype outlines. I haven't had a good look, though i am curious. Any ideas?

> And I'm saying - how many caveats are there going to be?  What's the goal here? Seems to me, that after three years or so of this, web fonts are still being strangled by their own "rules".  And what's going to happen when the fonts need to install as part of an ebook?  It goes from bad to worse.

There are as many caveats as each designer / copyright holder want to create, i guess. I have few caveats. Others have more, and others less. 
I'm not sure i agree that webfonts are being strangled at all. Why do you say that? Seems to me they keep spreading and spreading. Seems to be no antidote.

>  
> Maybe specifics would help. Would you mind answering this:  Do you consider the fonts you create to be your intellectual property?  If so, what rights do you want to hand over to users via the license? 
> And one more question: "enforcement" unfortunately has bad connotations. How would you like to see "compliance" handled?
>  

The question you should ask is "How much do you value your intellectual property?"  Depends. Some fonts i value more than others, but ultimately i am not over precious about them. They are designed to be free (as in bird, and freedom), so i guess i most value the freedom aspect of their intellectual property value.  I think 'enforcement' and 'compliance' would only become an issue if free fonts software started showing up in proprietary fonts, tbh. 

-vern