On 22 May 2013, at 13:15, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 22 May 2013 22:07, Vernon Adams <v...@newtypography.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Or, is there something i am not understanding in this? :) > > I think its unreasonable to expect every person publishing a blog who > makes their own subset to contact every copyright holder every time > they want to use a new OFL-RFN web font. >
But isn't it exactly for that scenario that a designer will publish without an RFN? If a designer wishes to make a font available under the OFL without RFN-caused restrictions on subsetting etc then he/she will publish without an RFN. Not difficult :) Still not seeing why no RFN needs to be the default position. I'm very open to persuasive argument tho. > I think the desirable effect of RFNs can be preserved with a trademark > license, while alleviating the undesirable effect of prohibiting > subsetting and other trivial changes while retaining the name users > are familiar with. Any chance you can give an 'idiots guide' on how a trademark license would preserved some of the effects of the RFN? I'm unsure how and when this trademark license would work? What would it be aimed at preventing? cheers vernon > > I note that SIL itself also asserts both RFN and trademark rights on > its font names; so if you are keen to maximize control over your font > names, it may make sense to do what I'm suggestion in addition to > RFNs, rather than replacing them. > > Cheers > Dave > > -- > -- > Google Font Directory Discussions > http://groups.google.com/group/googlefontdirectory-discuss > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Font Directory Discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to googlefontdirectory-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >
