On 5 June 2013 12:18, Vernon Adams <v...@newtypography.co.uk> wrote: > I see an opportunity to create more distribution points, and have as many > distributions as possible acting as primary distribution points :)
I do not. > Relying on some central, canonical, distro point to be the gatekeeper of > licensing info strikes me as a weakness. Far better imo that as > many of the distribution points as possible are a primary source of the > licensing info. The OFL requires licensing information to be available in all distribution. >>> But anyway, the important thing is that this IS how libre fonts are being >>> distributed more and more. >> >> I don't see this as important. > > The OFL-connected issues we have been discussing, are a result of a gap > between technology (how fonts are being used) and the licensing model > (how fonts are protected). That gap will get bigger; i suspect we will see > fonts needing to become even more mobile and 'free-er' This is incredibly vague. What specifically do you mean by 'more mobile'? > and that will > stretch the limits of the current libre licensing model even more. IMO > making the licensing more integral to the font object, and more simple, > and more permissive, is the way forward. A font object that has a trail > of docs left 'back at base', a trademark filed here, with the whiff of a law > suit in the wings, and limits on 'embedding types a, b , x and z' is not > going to be particularly 'free'. > > ps; i'm thinking, not arguing :) I'd like concrete suggestions about what to do :) -- Cheers Dave