On 7 Jun 2013, at 19:48, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mail...@laposte.net> wrote:
> The only sane separation is font bits (embedded, > modified, converted, bundled, rot13ed, or not) and the rest. Font is > whatever derivative part of the original work can be used to render a > single glyph, regardless of intent. So it sounds like what you're implying is that if a designer - Frank - creates a new doc in illustrator, chooses the font 'Lobster', types an 'O', converts to outlines, then then adds points, moves others, etc. in order to turn it into a square, then adds 40 more hours of work to fill the pages with other wonderful marvelous intricate artwork, and adjusts the square even more alongside other elements, then delivers that as a PDF, then the PDF must contain the full copyright and license information? According to your definition, this would be a font distribution. The font data remains there, although it has been embedded, modified, converted, etc. Glyph reshaping is fully allowed by the OFL of course. In your definition, at what point does a derivative part cease to be able to be used to 'render a single glyph'? Where is the line? ( BTW - you are adding here a definition of a 'font' that does not exist in the OFL. The OFL defines 'Font Software' very differently from your definition of 'font'. ) Very few people would agree that Frank's document is a 'font distribution'. There is effectively no way to extract or reconstruct the original font from the contents of the doc. So at some point there has to be some way of determining when the font data shifts from being separate font data into being a fully integrated part of the document (artwork) itself. (There is a huge amount of philosophical thought dedicated to the concepts of original creation versus tools and techniques - where is the border between the artist, the tools and the creation? - but that would not really be helpful to reiterate here.) Were we to say (as you seem to saying) that any bit (or glyph, or modified glyph no matter how small) from the font data contained in the document requires that the document then contain the license, even if (as in Frank's extreme case) that bit is relatively undistinguishable from the rest of the doc, then that would seem to be at odds with this statement from the OFL itself: "The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives." Since that definition/interpretation would clearly go against the OFL text itself, there must be a better way to interpret what designers would want when they choose this license. --- Some further background and reminders: The OFL-FAQ is not a legally binding document. Only the OFL itself - pure and simple - is legally binding. Neither Nicolas Spalinger or I are lawyers. We are not providing legal judgements nor professional legal advice. It is our opinion. However, it is from the point of view of people who were part of the extensive public and legal review process, regularly discuss the OFL and issues with members of the broad OFL community, who have done considerable research in the topic, and who seek to fairly and openly represent the views of the community. Whenever we can, we have expressed our opinions in a public doc (the OFL-FAQ) and have even subjected that doc to community discussion and review. The main purpose of the OFL-FAQ is to address practical issues in applying the OFL. --- So… as we faced applying the OFL to situations like Frank's - and ones that were far less clear - we needed to come up with a way to talk about this spectrum from obvious and complete integration into a doc to complete discrete separation from it. So in the FAQ we chose to use 'embedding' to refer to the type of inclusion where a font is integrated into the doc and not easily separated - in other words, when the document is 'created using the fonts' rather than is 'bundling' the fonts for distribution. We did not invent the term but rather used it as it is best understood and has been used by the type industry for decades. Because of this understanding, we see this as a reasonable interpretation of what the OFL is referring to when it says: "...can be bundled, embedded, redistributed and/or sold…" In other words: - We affirm that the OFL text is what is legally binding - the rest (including the OFL-FAQ) is opinion, refined and influenced by the community. - The OFL-FAQ does not in any way change the meaning of the license. It only seeks to help people interpret it in a common, public way. - The OFL-FAQ does not introduce any distinction between 'embedding' and 'distribution' that is incompatible with the OFL itself. That there is a distinction between documents that are 'created using the fonts' and packages that 'bundle' fonts with a document is in the OFL text. I know this may not satisfy your concerns. I do wish we could come to some common understanding. However, I remain convinced that both the current (update2) and draft (update3) OFL-FAQ fairly interpret the OFL in practical matters on implementation, and do not seek to add to or change the OFL itself. Regards, Victor [ BTW - I will be away for a few days, so I'll be unable to respond further until mid-next-week. ]
