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

[Pablo Impallari]

A recent real-life example, the Rosario font by Omnibus-Type, was
hand-hinted by Adobe.
http://blogs.adobe.com/edgewebfonts/2013/05/23/adobe-contributes-improvements-to-open-source-font-family-rosario/
http://googlewebfonts.blogspot.com.ar/2013/05/typekit-improves-rosario.html
That's great! (Pablo Cosgaya granted them permission to use the RFN's.)

But... if you look at https://typekit.com/fonts/rosario or at the pages
having the license https://typekit.com/eulas/000000000000000000014188 they
make NO MENTION of Omnibus-Type whatsoever.







2013/5/28 Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com>

> 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.
>
> --
> --
> 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.
>
>
>


-- 
Un Abrazo
Pablo Impallari
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/attachments/20130528/af00cceb/attachment-0001.html>