On 5 Jun 2013, at 09:17, Victor Gaultney <vt...@gaultney.org> wrote:
>> >> And the OFL definition of 'embedding' is … ? > > From the FAQ: > > Question: 1.11 What do you mean by 'embedding'? How does that differ from > other means of distribution? > > Answer: By 'embedding' we mean inclusion of the font in a document or file in > a way that makes extraction (and redistribution) difficult or clearly > discouraged. In many cases the names of embedded fonts might also not be > obvious to those reading the document, the font data format might be altered, > and only a subset of the font - only the glyphs required for the text - might > be included. Any other means of delivering a font to another person is > considered 'distribution', and needs to be accompanied by any copyright > notices and licensing information available in OFL.txt. > Thank Victor, Yes, i knew the definition :) and my point is how does that OFL definition of 'embedding' tally with the situation of how fonts are being distributed via 'embedding' in the real world? and will it likely tally with the situation in say 2 years? because; from the OFL definition, the uses of OFL fonts by Adobe, Monotype, etc IS 'embedding', and therefore (according to the FAQ) not 'distribution'. The fact that the OFL clearly attempts to separate 'distribution' from 'embedding' is a major note imo too. From the OFL FAQ embedding an OFL font from Typekit in a web page is a 'non-distribution'. 3-4 years ago i think we may have all simply shrugged at that. Now though it strikes me as very noteworthy; it means that the huge bulk of OFL fonts in use right now is 'non-distribution' use. So OFL fonts are being used en masse, as highly popular web objects 'embedded' in hundreds of millions of web pages a week, but their licensing 'kind of' considers all that usage as 'non-distribution'. And then, all those fonts lying in web browser caches? are they distributions? No? Yes? but only when someone takes the font and tweaks it back into a fully functioning .woff file? As a designer (who wants their fonts to be as free as possible) i see that the present situation needs some positive patching. I ideally want the freedom of my fonts protected under a license, where the license is as clear, simple and effective as possible, whichever way that font has been used. I see the definition of 'embedding' versus 'distribution' as not helpful. To me technology has clearly made embedding a distribution. I would like to think of the best way that my fonts can come out of any embedding process with it's licensing info and permissions clear, simple and intact, with no need to track down text files 'back at base' etc. What might be the best way to do that? again; i'm thinking, not arguing :) vernon
