On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 10:55 AM Bastian Germann <[email protected]> wrote:
> To be more specific about the RFN: Have a look at this Debian package's > copyright file or the https://scholarsfonts.net/cardofnt.html website. > > Yes, the googlefonts version does not have it and that is why I suggest > they are probably violating the license. So, from further reading in the thread, it sounds like you're suggesting not that Google Fonts merely redistributed an RFN-covered font binary with a functional difference (which would be an RFN violation), but that somebody at Google Fonts actually altered the text of the license. That's a considerably more egregious offense. The more plausible explanation is that Google Fonts asked him to remove the RFN clause as a condition for including it in Google Fonts. That's consistently been the standard procedure, and back in 2010 Google Fonts was not doing the whole rebuild-from-source in CI process. I haven't been able to find a Wayback Machine link (yet) that first links to a downloadable binary from the Google Fonts site for comparison. But considering that Cardo was one of the very first 10-12 fonts on the service, that's a lot of searching. It might be faster just to ask Google Fonts people. Nate -- nathan.p.willis [email protected]
