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

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Ven 7 juin 2013 14:46, Victor Gaultney a écrit :
> Nicolas -
>
>> When I pushed for Fedora to officially endorse the OFL, it was very
>> clear
>> in my mind that embedding was still a distribution of the font bits, and
>> that the OFL embedding clause merely stated there was a requirement
>> boundary between the embedded font and the rest of the document.
>
> The terms 'embedding' and 'distribution' have very specific meanings in
> the OFL context, and are mutually exclusive. Here is a slightly expand
> form of what is said in the FAQ:

Once again, this is a distinction which has been introduced in the FAQ,
and does not exist in the license itself. While the FAQ is an important
document, it is not the license itself and I feel it overstepped (and not
in a little way) when it started making this distinction.

Quoting from the license text:

> The
>fonts, including any derivative works, can be bundled, embedded,
> redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that any reserved
> names are not used by derivative works. The fonts and derivatives,
> however, cannot be released under any other type of license. The
> requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply
> to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives.

A distinction exists between a font and "any document created using the
fonts or their derivatives". The license does not state the same
restriction between a font and an embedded font part. It explicitely lists
embedded fonts as a form of "fonts, including any derivative works".

The following clause is even clearer:

> 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled,
> redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy
> contains the above copyright notice and this license.

The OFL explicitely states that, when bundled with a software (which in
practical terms means the font will be embedded in the software
installer), OFL provisions still apply to the fonts (including keeping
legal notices)

Somehow I missed when this entry has been added to the FAQ, but while most
other entries are merely explanations of OFL parts, this one introduces a
legal element which is not present in the license itself (and should have
raised alarms)

/note to self: find some quality time to read all the FAQ entries again

There is *no* ambiguity in the OFL that embedding is a form of copy
subject to the OFL. We should not even have this debate here. That,
through the FAQ, this requirement has been put in doubt, is quite
frightening.

> The widespread adoption of the OFL by both
> designers and users has mostly happened since then, so the very broad
> community has accepted the licence with full knowledge of this
> interpretation.

I strongly disagree with this part. SIL had no mandate to change the
meaning of the license through the FAQ and OFL adoption started before
this entry was written (at minimum, it should have been a new OFL version
with a specific embedding paragrah). FAQ changes have not been given he
same legal scrutinity than OFL text changes.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot