On 28 May 2013 23:16, Vernon Adams <v...@newtypography.co.uk> 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, 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. Software corporations _do_ have standard business processes for handling trademark agreements though and that is why I am so keen on them. Trademarks allow us to stop using RFNs but retain the kind of name control that you want. > These engineering modifications do not effect the stylstic aspect of a font's > visual appearance. While I share your position, as Adam and Victor have said, they don't see these changes as minor and advocate changing the name even when such changes are made. I think imposing a 'common sense naming policy' when naming derivative (and stylistically 'different') fonts from an already existing font should be done with trademarks, not copyrights. Since SIL and Canonical and Adobe assert trademarks and require separate trademark agreements with web font service providers anyway, I am more leaning towards making a simple web app that makes it easy to get RFN permission to do these things.
