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

[Dave Crossland]

On 28 May 2013 23:48, Vernon Adams <vern at newtypography.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2013, at 14:39, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
>
>> I think Victor has been quite clear that he's not at all interested in
>> diluting the OFL model like this, and I would not like to see such
>> additional permissions to the OFL floating around because I know that
>> software corporation's legal departments (ie, HP) consider "license
>> plus additional permission notice" to be a wholly discrete, custom
>> copyright license which immediately rules it out of consideration for
>> their use because they have policies against license proliferation -
>> and for good reason, because such a bespoke license is untested and
>> carries a lot more legal risk.
>
> But Adobe seem more than able to handle this 'additional permission' right here and now. So i really can't imagine that if this 'additional permission' had already existed within (or alongside) the OFL, that Adobe would have said 'whoa guys, don't go near those OFL fonts!!'. Or would they?

I know that anyone dealing with free software in software corporations
must get their legal departments to review a 'well known license +
other licensing text' license as a new, discrete license, and that
doing that can be (a) hard to get legal's attention in the first place
and (b) they are unlikely to be happy about it because license
profileration is bad.

Maybe the legal department will wave it though. Maybe not.