On 5 Jun 2013, at 11:50, Victor Gaultney <vt...@gaultney.org> wrote:
>> >> from the OFL definition, the uses of OFL fonts by Adobe, Monotype, etc IS >> 'embedding'... > > Uh - not at all. "…we mean inclusion of the font in a document or file…" The > web fonts paper, again, talks all about this. :-) Yes. I'm not really interested if it is or isn't embedding. Some people claim it is, some point out that it isn't. It clearly isn't in my view. But, I think that's the wrong question anyway :-) I'm just trying to get at the point that (as the FAQ says) - "Any other means of delivering a font to another person is considered 'distribution" Correct? So... that single file that is pulled into your browser cache from typekit etc is a distribution of an OFL font. It can't be not-embedded and not-a-distribution; under the terms of the OFL it has to be one or the other. So it's a distribution. My point is that billions of OFL fonts are being distributed like this every week, and i am not sure that they are as well marked as Free fonts as they could be. They often lack clear info of what they are. If i look at the info in the 'font files' that Typekit etc sends to my browser, compared to the info in the files in my master git repo, i feel that the file coming to users from Typekit etc could be a bit more 'informational'. I would prefer a Libre font model where the font itself (in whatever form) integrates just enough info that it can be clearly deemed a "Free Font", not reliant on checking master repos, or bundled text files etc etc. Does this sound totally crazy? :) It seems very clear to me, but apparently not to anyone else! :) > >> And then, all those fonts lying in web browser caches? are they >> distributions? No? Yes?… > > Web browser caches as a distribution model seems a bit out there. Yes in terms of adoption and usage numbers, they are the distribution model way out there, leading the pack :) thanks for all your time and effort on this too. -vernon
