It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Please can you confirm that in every instance, every license self-identifies by its definition as "libre" ... What does FLOSS encompass? ... Please can you clarify how a user can assure that the license is "libre", rather than any non-libre alternative.
can be used commercially, free-of-charge, without further action including embedding, modification and hosting across distributions?
For example, fonts available under the LaTeX catalogue follow a variety of licenses that may be copyleft without exception – it is not always immediately obvious.
Please can you also clarify the termination clause of the OFL v1.1 license, in terms of actual legal risk? For example, if the licensee uses a modified version online but fails to include or link to the copyright notice and licensing information.
these types of license – theoretically – could be subject to updates?
Fairness must go both ways. The font designer should
not get underpaid, but also not get overpaid. Restrictions in a desktop license, can be considered as a way to
prevent underpaying the font
designer. The Digital Ads
license for Web fonts, can be considered as a way to prevent overpaying the font designer.