State of the art in AI image generation as we go into 2026.

Another fundamental point that should not be overlooked is that the OFL was created for humans — specifically designers, developers, and those engaged in collaborative creative work. AI, however, is not a human actor. It has no authorship, no rights, and no inherent need for the freedoms the OFL was designed to guarantee.

If the OFL is not updated to account for AI, its original intent could be effectively undermined within the next 10–15 years. AI systems are already moving toward generating complete typefaces, including refined spacing and kerning, in a fraction of the time required by human designers.

Early signs of this shift are already visible: tools can produce complex outputs from minimal input. Applied to typography, this enables the large-scale creation of fonts that are clearly stylistically derived from OFL-licensed sources, yet may not meet the current legal definition of “derivative works.”

The consequences could be significant. Type designers and font engineers may face growing economic pressure or displacement. At the same time, large-scale actors could systematically ingest entire libraries — such as Google Fonts — and mass-produce thousands of variations.

The question, therefore, is not whether this will become technically possible, but whether it aligns with the community’s values.

Updating the OFL would not restrict freedom; it would expand it. It would give designers the ability to make meaningful choices about how their work is used in the age of AI. Freedom is not only about openness — it is also about agency.

Not just local computers — OFL is designed for broad redistribution and circulation across the web ecosystem.

And my point was mainly about where AI systems may be in 10–15 years, not only about current capabilities.