The ofl has no upgrade model, the authors have no resources to make an update, and believe the license provides for this situation.
I will try to make getting addition permission privately a convenient process for those who must seek such permission, for rfns and trademarks. On May 29, 2013 1:47 PM, "Vernon Adams" <v...@newtypography.co.uk> wrote: > I can understand this, except for one thing; > > Surely it would not be 'diluting' the OFL to reshape it to bring more > clarity to the licensing of this whole 'minor modification' space that > webfont services are opening up? > Imo the OFL needs to be ever so slightly tweaked, but only to better > protect the freedom of OFL'd fonts. That's not a dilution, that's a > re-concentration. > > On the other hand, expecting designers to rely on an external triggers > such as 'trademarks' to plug this issue, does seem to dilute the license. > > -vernon > > > > On 29 May 2013, at 05:05, Victor Gaultney <vt...@gaultney.org> wrote: > > >>> > >>> > >>> Perhaps the authors of the OFL could create such a text? > >> > >> I think Victor has been quite clear that he's not at all interested in > >> diluting the OFL model like this, > > > > Yes - for the reasons Dave mentions, and the basic conceptual difficulty > of defining and evaluating what changes would be allowed. > >