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

[Vernon Adams]

On 23 May 2013, at 08:10, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:

> On 23 May 2013 16:49, Vernon Adams <vern at newtypography.co.uk> wrote:
>> The RFN part was probably not conceived as a copyleft
>> component of the OFL. My point though, is that it can (under
>> certain circumstances) also be used to preserve certain freedoms,
>> more than it may ever restrict freedoms.
> 
> What freedoms?

I'm playing devils advocat here a lot :)  but i feel that if i use a RFN with particular font families it gives me at least some added control against their (mis)use. On a personal note, i am uncomfortable with this; i dislike benevolent dictators as much as any type of dictator!

> 
>> Do you see that the RFN can restricts a font's freedom? I'm
>> interested to hear thoughts on that, as i'm still grappling with all this.
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> OFL-RFN fonts will simply not be used as widely on the web, because
> the administrative burden of requesting, getting and tracking the
> permission is too expensive - aside from any fees RFN holders might
> try to charge.

Yes, i certainly agree that a non-RFN'd font is more mobile and more flexible than a RFN'd font.
I think designers will continue to have to make decisions about that, but then i see licensing as an integral part of a font's design anyway. The decisions you make about licensing will effect the mobility and use of the font, just as decisions on hinting, style, language support, etc will.

-v