|| ||Barry Schwartz <chemoelectric-89SRHWR88QLmu679iFSsndi2O/JbrIOy-AT-public.gmane.org> |
|| ||Open Font Library <openfontlibrary-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW-AT-public.gmane.org> |
|| ||Re: [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper |
|| ||Wed, 22 May 2013 19:28:44 -0500|
|| ||Article, Thread
Dave Crossland <dave-yX7OcqChgmE@public.gmane.org> skribis:
> On 22 May 2013 22:41, Vernon Adams <vern-nztp2eEOrCR84o+VKJ9KNPXRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>
> > 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?
> If you have no RFN, someone can make subsets (yay) but also release
> Oswald Serif without additional permission (hmm) - but if you have a
> trademark, they can subset Oswald but can't release Oswald Serif.
> Please consider
I have long thought and continue to think that RFNs are way more
trouble than they are worth. It makes the OFL look complicated and
frightening, which is the opposite of what should be the goal. Plus,
if someone intends to give a font a different name, they don’t need to
be told to do it; and, if they do not intend to, they are not going to
corrupt society to the core. The worst that will happen is you’ll have
to be careful where you got the font.
The rest of the software community has managed to get along for
decades without having everyone give their version of ‘ls’ a different
name. It creates problems, big ones, but the alternative is worse.
Trademark is a related but different issue.
to post comments)