[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)

> [snip]
> On the matter of freeness of software licensed under the OFL:
>>3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
>>Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is
>>granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction applies to all 
>>references stored in the Font Software, such as the font menu name and
>>other font description fields, which are used to differentiate the
>>font from others.
> Non-free, because it prohibits accurate descriptive uses of the names, such
> as "Foolio is based on Garamond".

But the descriptive use is not what will appear in the font menu itself.
The most appropriate place to make that clear is in the FONTLOG (or
maybe the documentation).

I can see that the use of "font description fields" can be ambigious in
that sense.

The OFL seeks to preserve a sane namespace and avoid conflicts resulting
in documents not rendering as expected. Using a Reserved Font Name in a
binary descriptive field of a .ttf will not technically collide with a
font but may abuse the reputation of a designer.

See FAQ entry 1.10 and 2.7 for more details :

Users who install derivatives ("Modified Versions") on their systems
should not see any of the original names ("Reserved Font Names") in
their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams, documents
that refer to a particular font name, etc. Again, this is to ensure that
users are not confused and do not mistake a font for another and so
expect features only another derivative or the Standard Version can
actually offer. (from OFL FAQ entry 2.8).

Nicolas Spalinger

Reply to: