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
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
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
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
