> Except they won't do that, since that would harm adoption of their font.
Is it because it would harm adoption or because it's infeasible? You can download copyrighted images and use them for your own profit, copy github code with GPL code for your closed-source project, or sign pretty much any contract (say for a car or a house) without actually reading it. Just because there is no safeguard to ensure you are really read what you "agreed" to, doesn't mean it's unenforcable.
Moreover, the terms are very simple (1.5 pages) - hardly some "weird terms" to define how you are allowed to redistribute intellectual property.
Is it because it would harm adoption or because it's infeasible? You can download copyrighted images and use them for your own profit, copy github code with GPL code for your closed-source project, or sign pretty much any contract (say for a car or a house) without actually reading it. Just because there is no safeguard to ensure you are really read what you "agreed" to, doesn't mean it's unenforcable.
Moreover, the terms are very simple (1.5 pages) - hardly some "weird terms" to define how you are allowed to redistribute intellectual property.