Vernon Adams <v...@newtypography.co.uk> skribis: > > This is a follow on to the recent thread "OFL-FAQ update draft and web > > fonts paper" that Victor Gaultney started. > > > > The OFL faq update draft and the way a few large foundries have started > > serving OFL'd webfonts brought to my attention the way OFL'd fonts were > > being used out there in the wild. Alongside the big foundries serving > > OFL'd fonts as webfonts, there are also now a few sites cataloguing fonts, > > and then making them available for download as font files, or as @font-face > > 'kits'. E.g. http://fontpro.com/ > > I think this is all 'great', but these sites are also often not > > distributing the OFL along with the distributed fonts. Also of course, > > these sites don't make available source files, and are often making > > modifications to metadata but then not following the OFL on distributing > > modified fonts. > > > > So i'm interested how other designers of OFL'd fonts see this, or how > > people in the wider FLOSS community see this situation? Does anyone not > > care? Anyone really unhappy about it? Some times i shrug and think 'so > > what?', but then i am also very aware that ignoring these breaches 'en > > masse' does perhaps undermine the integrity of the OFL itself. It's like > > we need a Libre Font Union or something ;)
IMO FontPro should be more explicit about licenses, because they offer downloads. I haven’t downloaded a package to see what comes with it. My opinion on webfonts is that they are being embedded in a document and so everything is A-OK. Nothing more is required.
