[OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper

[Vernon Adams]

On 22 May 2013, at 13:15, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 22 May 2013 22:07, Vernon Adams <vern at newtypography.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> Or, is there something i am not understanding in this?  :)
> 
> I think its unreasonable to expect every person publishing a blog who
> makes their own subset to contact every copyright holder every time
> they want to use a new OFL-RFN web font.
> 

But isn't it exactly for that scenario that a designer will publish without an RFN?
If a designer wishes to make a font available under the OFL without RFN-caused restrictions on subsetting etc then he/she will publish without an RFN. Not difficult :)
Still not seeing why no RFN needs to be the default position. I'm very open to persuasive argument tho.


> I think the desirable effect of RFNs can be preserved with a trademark
> license, while alleviating the undesirable effect of prohibiting
> subsetting and other trivial changes while retaining the name users
> are familiar with.

Any chance you can give an 'idiots guide' on how a trademark license would preserved some of the effects of the RFN? I'm unsure how and when this trademark license would work? What would it be aimed at preventing?

cheers

vernon


> 
> I note that SIL itself also asserts both RFN and trademark rights on
> its font names; so if you are keen to maximize control over your font
> names, it may make sense to do what I'm suggestion in addition to
> RFNs, rather than replacing them.
> 
> Cheers
> Dave
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Google Font Directory Discussions
> http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss
> 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Font Directory Discussions" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
>