2026-07-28 14:53 UTC
It would be pretty antisocial to declare RFNs in your font license that just included random words you like, but
(a) You probably still have to worry about two-derivatives-back restrictions (e.g., an OFL-licensed Adobe Utopia derivative)
&
(b) I think it's reasonable that people might want to put their foundry name in the RFN list, even if it's not in the original font name.
Yes, it would be a pathological person who attempted to intentionally create confusion with such a rename, but hey....
Replies (1)
-
@n8@mastodon.social 2026-07-28 15:00
Anywho, I don't have a conclusion to tie this to. I just don't think I have encountered a discussion of it before. One of the awkward bits of the RFN clause itself is that it's essentially an unbounded field that you could fill up with anything. I think that the corresponding clauses in software licenses like the BSD family that pin the "trademark"y restrictions to the actual bounded set of author/work terms makes more sense. It's something I'd change in an OFL 2.0. Thoughts more than welcome