Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Fwd: [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild

2013-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 3 June 2013 15:27, Barry Schwartz chemoelect...@chemoelectric.org wrote:
 My opinion on webfonts is that they are being embedded in a document
 and so everything is A-OK. Nothing more is required.

I'm curious why you think this, given the reasons Victor gave for it
not being the case in his document :)

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Fwd: [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild

2013-06-03 Thread Vernon Adams 
I have now contacted font pro.com about this. They promise to remedy the 
situation.
The download  packages, contain no OFL license. 

-v

On 3 Jun 2013, at 12:27, Barry Schwartz chemoelect...@chemoelectric.org wrote:

 IMO FontPro should be more explicit about licenses, because they offer
 downloads. I haven’t downloaded a package to see what comes with it.

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Fwd: [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild

2013-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 3 June 2013 15:36, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
 I have now contacted font pro.com about this. They promise to remedy the 
 situation.
 The download  packages, contain no OFL license.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9We2XsVZfc

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Fwd: [GFD] Treatment of the OFL in the wild

2013-06-03 Thread Khaled Hosny 
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:33:55PM -0400, Dave Crossland wrote:
 On 3 June 2013 15:27, Barry Schwartz chemoelect...@chemoelectric.org wrote:
  My opinion on webfonts is that they are being embedded in a document
  and so everything is A-OK. Nothing more is required.
 
 I'm curious why you think this, given the reasons Victor gave for it
 not being the case in his document :)

You can embed a webfont as base64 encoded string inside the HTML file.
Even the common case of just linking to the file is not much different
from bundling the font in the zip container of ODT or DOCX.

Regards,
Khaled