[Lohit-devel-list] Planning to drop Reserved Font Name (RFN) from OFL.txt

Shriramana Sharma samjnaa at gmail.com
Fri Dec 28 06:00:35 UTC 2012


On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Pravin Satpute <psatpute at redhat.com> wrote:
> I understood the concern you raised regarding distributed font
> development. I think we need some protection from License itself for
> this purpose.

Hello. I have now read up the previous thread on the fonts list as
well (I'm not a member there). Forgive me if I have not understood any
of the previous statements (of the various people) but this is my take
on the issue:

1) It is remarked that the FOS world has double standards between
fonts vs software as regards licensing. May I submit that there are
possibly a few valid reasons for this?:

a) It is far easier to muck up a font and distribute it than a
program. I mean, to make changes to a program and still have it even
compile/execute means that modifier has at least followed the syntax
of the respective language, so you can't just go in there and muck
things up all that easily. But one can very easily muck up a font by
opening it up in the freely available FontForge, altering points here
and there, and saving it back. One doesn't even need to know any
syntax or such. So a font creator would naturally be more concerned
about his/her work being munged up and redistributed IMHO.

b) For a font, visual beauty is more important, whereas for a program,
functionality is more important. It is more natural to perceive a font
as a work of art than a program (from the user's perspective I mean).

c) A font is more ubiquitous than a program -- it crosses over into
physical media also, again strengthening its perception as "more" a
work of art than a program.

Perhaps I could give a few more reasons, but I suppose the above would
be sufficient.

Anyhow, I support the concept of having RFNs in general. IIUC even the
GPL says it's OK to place a requirement on GPLed software to be
renamed in case of modifications.

As for trademarks vs RFNs, I suppose trademark (as applied to fonts)
is just a more official legalized version of RFN. Effectively both TMs
and RFNs say "you can't use this name for anything other than what I'm
distributing to you unless you have my permission". I suppose the
Firefox/Iceweasel thing would be a appropriate precedent in this.

As regards the WOFF thing, I suppose a future version of the OFL could
provide a clause for automatic permission to use the RFN for WOFF or
such technical format modifications which do not alter the appearance
of the glyphs significantly or affect the smart functioning of the
font. But such clauses might be fraught with problems, so I suppose a
FAQ clarification is best.

Anyhow, all this is general stuff. As for the Lohit fonts (to which I
have also contributed my mite in Tamil and Devanagari) I have no
objections to removing the RFN if the project maintainers and other
contributors feel like it, but I think that one should not replace the
RFN with a trademark notice as then the removal of the RFN would be
meaningless.

-- 
Shriramana Sharma




More information about the Lohit-devel-list mailing list