That could have been in-page information rather than a PDF. Or even better, get rid of it. EULA for a font is a wishful move.

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.

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

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.

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

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

They could have used the SIL Open Font License instead. People in the open source world are often already familiar with it, and resources like tl;dr Legal are available for it.

Their EULA is, in fact almost exactly the SIL Open Font License, but someone decided minor changes in wording were more valuable than standardization.

https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL_web

https://tldrlegal.com/license/open-font-license-(ofl)-explai...

If you go to the google fonts version of this font ( https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Atkinson+Hyperlegible )

It DOES use SIL Open Font License. Maybe it's dual licensed?