|| ||Vernon Adams <vern-nztp2eEOrCR84o+VKJ9KNPXRex20P6io-AT-public.gmane.org> |
|| ||googlefontdirectory-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw-AT-public.gmane.org |
|| ||Re: [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper |
|| ||Tue, 28 May 2013 14:16:04 -0700|
|| ||Victor Gaultney <Victor_Gaultney-HUkWsRAlkkg-AT-public.gmane.org>,
Open Font Library <openfontlibrary-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW-AT-public.gmane.org>|
|| ||Article, Thread
On 28 May 2013, at 02:24, Victor Gaultney <vweb-ZLAh8djbdEtg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On 27 May 2013, at 20:20, Vernon Adams <vern-nztp2eEOrCR84o+VKJ9KNPXRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>
>> Is it not possible to include with a font, alongside the OFL, a 'pre-emptive permission' text
that gives the user the go-ahead to use the RFN named in OFL text when a font has been modified by
subsetting, re-hinting, etc, (i would have to think of the full list) ?? Seems a sensible solution
> A copyright holder can certainly do something like that. The OFL doesn't prohibit or discourage
it. Such are really very separate permission agreements.
> The main caveat is that the copyright holder should be sure they are very clear about the
specific types of modifications that are allowed (and not allowed), and how they will be judged.
IOW - I think that to give others a blanket permission to change hinting is dangerous. It would be
better to allow hinting *if the results is generally more readable than the original*. Otherwise
you could have some service that cares for only one platform (that ignores hints anyway) completely
blow away your careful hinting and make your font look terrible on Windows.
Yes. I am suggesting that a generic text could be used that gives permission for those specific
tasks that are commonly carried out when a font is used within a 'webfont server' service, and in a
service such as Font Squirrel. Perhaps the authors of the OFL could create such a text? A sort of
'engineering exception' that can be voluntarilly used with the OFL? I really don't think
'standards' need to come into it, and they are too complicated to define.
So according to Adobe, they do the following with the OFL'd fonts they use in their Edge service;
• NAME table changes, including stripping of some attribution metadata and obfuscation of Name
• Injecting a EULA link that lives at typekit.com, which displays the attribution metadata in an
easily discoverable location.
• format conversions: TTF (if the original is a CFF), SVG, SWF, WOFF, EOT.
• subset creation: we currently offer our users two subsets: "default" (omits everything but
Latin-1 plus some useful typographic marks) and "all" (includes everything the font has to offer).
• miscellaneous updates related to web delivery, e.g., adjustments to CFF table's dictionary and
index data in order to accommodate changes to data location within the table resulting from
subsetting; vertical metrics adjustments for cross-browser consistency.
I would say that these type of modifications are of a different nature to the type of modifications
that i think the RFN is really aimed at. I see the RFN as a way of way to protect the 'stylistic
aspect' of a font within the freedoms to modify and derivate.
I read the RFN part of the OFL, not as a non-permission, but more as a way of imposing a 'common
sense naming policy' when naming a derivative (and stylistically 'different') font from an already
existing font. These engineering modifications do not effect the stylstic aspect of a font's visual
> If you're going to give people wide and generous permissions with no standards and no recourse,
then why declare RFNs at all?
> Google Font Directory Discussions
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Font Directory
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
to post comments)