Re: Added RFN-violation bug template to wiki
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Nathan Willis wrote:
> So you can do "MyFoundry Baskerville" and just reserve your foundry name
> (which you'd likely have a trademark claim on that you're defending in other
> ways, too). Then "OtherType Baskerville" is explicitly still OK.
After reading the last few mails, it seems to me that RFNs are mainly
about reputation and mainly for individual font designers and
foundries.
I'd suggest that RFN best practice should be:
Avoid RFNs completely for fonts with a community behind them (like DejaVu).
For foundries and individual font designers concerned about reputation:
* add a deterministic build setup
* leave the RFN out of the source
* leave the designer/foundry name out of the font name in the source
* add a note to the source encouraging people to rename for major forks
* add the designer/foundry name to the font name in the binary fonts
* add an RFN of the designer/foundry name *only* in the binary fonts
For example:
"Gentium" in the source
"SIL Gentium" in the SIL-distributed .otf files
RFN of "SIL" in the SIL-distributed .otf files
Font name alias of "Gentium" in the SIL-distributed .otf files
(not sure if this last one is possible?)
Does that sound plausible?
How can we popularise this and make it best practice?
Any volunteers to talk to designers/foundries?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: