[balefrost]

The EULA is giving you permission to e.g. copy and modify the font with certain restrictions (e.g. include the license text if you distribute it). In that regard, it's not terribly dissimilar in spirit from an open source software license.

[danuker]

Why is it not an actual open source license? Perhaps CC-By or something?

[SamBam]

CC-By would require attributing on any page you use it on, right?

Their license simply says to include the license if you re-distribute the font.

[just-ok]

Aren’t you re-distributing the font by using it on a webpage? Well, assuming you self-host or provide a third-party link.

[eru]

The distinction is more between an EULA vs one of the common open source licenses.