Hi! On 23 May 2013 16:21, Vernon Adams <v...@newtypography.co.uk> wrote: > The RFN can have an integral role in how a designer can preserve > or enhance a certain type of freedom for a font. Or it simply restrict > font's freedom. I'm still arguing with myself about it :)
:) > Reserving the name of the font, sets down a licensing condition > that must be met. If that condition is not met then the license is breached. > This is clear when dealing with 1 or 2 a large corporations (who may > not be interested in preserving the font's freedom); as it gives 3 clear > solutions for them to use their own modified version of a font; > 1. Follow the OFL, use the font, change the font's name , and preserve > the font's freedom. > 2. Follow the OFL, use the font, get an agreement from me to use the > RFN, and preserve the font's freedom. > 3. Buy an embedding license from me, use the font non-free, and i > preserve the font's freedom. 4. Don't use the fonts, because this is all too complicated. > Now, with a few large corporations, this is highly manageable. I am not sure about that. > But what happens with the mass of individual users and or small > businesses, who maybe are also making modifications and serving the font ? > Of course, i can simply decide to ignore the potential mass of > individual breaches of non-changing of RFN's, and instead simply > focus on the few 'major' breaches. Bit of a license fudge tho imo. Are you aware of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel ? Allowing infringement can make it hard to complain about infringement. > The argument i have with myself is; why do i feel the use of RFN's > is not necessary when dealing with masses of individual users, > but i feel i want it there in case of corporate users? > It could be that i see that corporate users could easilly afford to > buy (modestly priced) RFN agreements from me (if they need to > use the fonts), thus 'giving something back' to the designer of > the free fonts they are using, and funding future fonts. Asserting a trademark will carry the same requirement for corporate users to license the trademark, and corporations already have well established processes and budgets for licensing trademarks. OFL-RFN is unusual, complex, and less likely to open that (meagre) jackpot. Cheers Dave
