On 23 May 2013, at 10:56, Pablo Impallari <impall...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You know, we have the situation at present where at least one major corp is > > using my fonts in their services > > They are modifying and using the RFN without agreement from me. > > I have the same concerns as Vernon. > I'm getting the feeling that removing the RFM will allow Adobe and MT to do > whatever they want without agreement from us. Yes it would. And Joe's Web Fonts, and Jim's Free Fonts, and James' Funky Fonts and *anyone else*. Keep in mind that we've already given all those people the freedom to do whatever they want. We have not hindered their freedom to modify, use, study, redistribute, etc… the font in any way. That is why the OFL is a valid and approved FOSS license. I'm proud to have fonts that I've designed released in this way. If we declare RFNs we're saying only that people can't identify the result of their changes with the font names we've chosen and reserved - the ones that identify them with *me*. That is not unreasonable at all, and is certainly not a dilution of or an attack on freedom. If you want to read the position of the OFL maintainers on RFNs please see the FAQ. My personal opinion - not that of SIL International or an OFL maintainer, but as an independent font designer - is that we should: - declare RFNs , both to protect our reputations and keep poor derivatives from polluting the web fonts namespace, and - be very generous with giving agreements to web font vendors that we trust, and not try to turn it into an economic game where we try to seek payment or other rewards in exchange for our RFNs. We chose to use the OFL so that our fonts could be freely available to everyone and through anyone, and we declare RFNs to make sure that users get - freely - what they expect from fonts that we create. I hope we can be very friendly and helpful to all the web font services, but still hold them to some reasonable standards. Thanks, Victor
