On 05/23/2013 07:36 PM, Nathan Willis wrote:
I'm _generally_ in favor of pursuing the trademark front as an
alternative to RFN (although obviously at this point it's a bit
experimental). I wonder, though, if recommending trademarks would be
problematic because of the differences in trademark law between
jurisdictions.
I don't know global TM law; maybe it's so convoluted that ever country
would require its own FAQ. But maybe it's not...
Hey girls and guys,
just some practical points:
the RFN works great against a usual argument of type designers who are
afraid that open sourcing their work will lead to forks of ‘questionable
quality’—you can say that they have control over ‘their’ version of the
font because other fonts need a distinguishly different name.
the RFN doesn’t work great in terms of the Git/github model of
development, because basically in the cycle forking, modifying,
submitting a pull request, you are already violating the RFN.
At the same time, the fact that there are many versions of one artwork /
typeface / software with the same name can be difficult. I think for
instance of the many versions of GitX floating around. That’s where I
like the RFN as well.
In theory, I would like a soft RFN that forces you to change the name if
you don’t intend to contribute your changes back to the font you forked. [1]
Trademarks, on the other hand, to me seem pretty ludicrous, but I might
be misinformed. As far as I know, they cost money, and require active
litigation to keep them valid (i.e., contrary to copyright, if you don’t
activily sue for trademark infringements you risk to loose the trademark
protection).
Can someone outline how asking for a trademark would work for an
indepent Font designer and how it would benefit them?
Good night!
xx
E
[1] BTW, hard forks, forks that don’t contribute back to the thing
forked from, seem more desirable in fonts then in software. Like Gill is
a fork of Johnston, or Helvetica of Akzidensk—that’s cool, and something
made a lot more easy by an ecosystem of OFL fonts.
