[ajross]

Well, sure. But these fonts are already open source. So who would buy it when they can get it for free from Adobe? This is like the resellers of free software on ebay. Sure, you can sell to a few dummies. And it's a little annoying. But it's not something that's going to hurt Adobe or its image meaningfully. Why bother polluting your license with this restriction?

[jonah]

If it's only going to affect people selling free stuff to ignorant people, why complain about the restriction? Wouldn't reducing people essentially scamming be a worthy reason for having that clause?

[ajross]

One good reason to complain about the restriction would be that it's a potential violation of the open source definition and a GPL-incompatible "additional restriction" on redistribution. And because it's just dumb.

[khaled]

FWIW, OFL is an FSF-approved license http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SILOFL. Also it was not written by Adobe, Adobe here just picked the most widely used free software font license.

[tincholio]

So that people who don't know better don't get screwed. That seems like a worthy goal to me.