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

[Vernon Adams]

Not sure this is about RFN's, (except that within the situation permission to use the RFN was granted).
I think this is more to do with the way that Adobe / Typekit have approached using the OFL'd fonts from Google Webfonts.
-v


On 28 May 2013, at 15:12, Pablo Impallari <impallari at gmail.com> wrote:

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