Le Mer 5 juin 2013 19:02, Dave Crossland a écrit : > On 5 June 2013 12:59, vernon adams <v...@newtypography.co.uk> wrote: >> from the OFL definition, the uses of OFL fonts by Adobe, Monotype, etc >> IS 'embedding', > > No its not! :) > > Its LINKING not embedding. The obfuscation that the FAQ mentions is a > distraction. Web fonts are LINKED unless they are including inside a > HTML file in a data url.
The embedding clause applies to the document, not to the embedded font bits. The OFL clauses do not apply *to the rest of the document*. They still apply to the embedded font bits. If the OFL FAQ now hints it is not the case, there is a serious misunderstanding and lots of organisations are going to re-evaluate their OFL by-in. Because that makes the free aspects of the license trivially bypassable. If you embed a font in a document, the embedded bits must still have all the properties needed to satisfy the OFL (that means the embedding process should never strip the legal metadata when embeding the font) -- Nicolas Mailhot