Re: [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper
[Posted May 30, 2013 by n8willis]
| From: |
| Vernon Adams <vern-nztp2eEOrCR84o+VKJ9KNPXRex20P6io-AT-public.gmane.org> |
| To: |
| Open Font Library <openfontlibrary-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW-AT-public.gmane.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [GFD] OFL-FAQ update draft and web fonts paper |
| Date: |
| Wed, 29 May 2013 10:45:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID: |
| <3A60B4D7-A581-4D0D-94CE-B840AF59D213@newtypography.co.uk> |
I can understand this, except for one thing;
Surely it would not be 'diluting' the OFL to reshape it to bring more clarity to the licensing of
this whole 'minor modification' space that webfont services are opening up?
Imo the OFL needs to be ever so slightly tweaked, but only to better protect the freedom of OFL'd
fonts. That's not a dilution, that's a re-concentration.
On the other hand, expecting designers to rely on an external triggers such as 'trademarks' to plug
this issue, does seem to dilute the license.
-vernon
On 29 May 2013, at 05:05, Victor Gaultney <vtype-ZLAh8djbdEtg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps the authors of the OFL could create such a text?
>>
>> I think Victor has been quite clear that he's not at all interested in
>> diluting the OFL model like this,
>
> Yes - for the reasons Dave mentions, and the basic conceptual difficulty of defining and
evaluating what changes would be allowed.
