So if the person who is doing the embedding intends for others to be able to
trivially separate out the font, or uses an
embedding process that makes that simple, then they should be sure that the
basic license metadata is also included.
There can be no question of intent here.
The embedded
Nicolas -
When I pushed for Fedora to officially endorse the OFL, it was very clear
in my mind that embedding was still a distribution of the font bits, and
that the OFL embedding clause merely stated there was a requirement
boundary between the embedded font and the rest of the document.
On 7 Jun 2013, at 13:10, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
If you allow intent here, the OFL clauses have no force anymore. At least
that's how I understand the legalities.
Intent is a factor, but not the only one. If the fonts can reasonably and
practically be extracted for
On 7 Jun 2013, at 05:46, Victor Gaultney vt...@gaultney.org wrote:
The terms 'embedding' and 'distribution' have very specific meanings in the
OFL context, and are mutually exclusive. Here is a slightly expand form of
what is said in the FAQ:
Embedding = inclusion of font data solely for
On 7 June 2013 09:23, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
i think the biggest usage of OFL'd fonts today (base 64 encoded
woff files served from a central server to users browsers) seems
to fall into both :) This is what is causing any problems or confusion.
It might _appear_ to be
Le Ven 7 juin 2013 20:23, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
Le Ven 7 juin 2013 15:23, Vernon Adams a écrit :
This i what i pointed at earlier. The OFL defines a font's usage as
either
'embedding' or 'distribution'.
This is irrelevant. As noted during the GPLv3 review process, both
'derivative'
Le Ven 7 juin 2013 20:16, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
The OFL explicitely states that, when bundled with a software (which in
practical terms means the font will be embedded in the software
installer), OFL provisions still apply to the fonts (including keeping
legal notices)
And now that
On 7 June 2013 13:45, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
to convert from my sources to a woff, is a clear 'modification', i would say.
The OFL FAQ and I both disagree with this; WOFF is simply compression,
not modification, and it guarantees 100% that the data you put into
the
On 7 Jun 2013, at 12:21, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote:
On 7 June 2013 13:45, Vernon Adams v...@newtypography.co.uk wrote:
to convert from my sources to a woff, is a clear 'modification', i would say.
The OFL FAQ and I both disagree with this; WOFF is simply compression,
not
On 7 Jun 2013, at 19:48, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
The only sane separation is font bits (embedded,
modified, converted, bundled, rot13ed, or not) and the rest. Font is
whatever derivative part of the original work can be used to render a
single glyph, regardless of
10 matches
Mail list logo
