The SIL Open Font License 1.1 (SPDX short identifier OFL-1.1) and its
superseded predecessor (OFL-1.0) have a notion of a "Reserved Font
Name". In the case of OFL-1.1, at least, this is contemplated as a
licensor-optional addition to a copyright notice ("Copyright (c)
<dates>, <Copyright Holder> (<URL|email>), with Reserved Font Name
<Reserved Font Name>"), with some licensing consequences flowing from
specifying the name ("No Modified Version of the Font Software may use
the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is
granted by the corresponding Copyright Holder.").
Shouldn't OFL-1.1 (and possibly also OFL-1.0) with the Reserved Font
Name feature be distinguished in SPDX from OFL-1.1 where no Reserved
Font Name is specified?
Senior Commercial Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.