Prohibit reserved font names *entirely* going forward?

Apologies if this has already been suggested somewhere. The issue template for adding a font contains the string "Reserved Font Name", so it's impossible to search through the issues to see if this has already been raised.

**Describe the issue**
The [Google Fonts guide](https://googlefonts.github.io/gf-guide/license-file.html) *discourages* the use of Reserved Font Names, but does not outright *prohibit* it:

> - In other cases, a legal agreement needs to be made between Google and the copyright holders. This is the case for all Adobe and SIL fonts, for example. In that case you should get in contact with your Google Fonts point of contact to start the legal process of allowing GF to use the font name despite the RFN. This is usually done by a simple email from an authorized representative of the RFN holder:
>
> > To: fonts@google.com
> > Subject: Permission to use Reserved Font Name
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I hereby grant permission in perpetuity to Google LLC and affiliates to use the following
> > trademarks and Reserved Font Names declared in my SIL Open Font Licence notices
> > for fonts served via Google Fonts:
> >
> > - Unique part of family names
> > - Unique part of family names
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Firstname Last-name
> > Company Name
>
> Once the authorisation has been given, the font names should be added to [Fontbakery’s exception list](https://github.com/googlefonts/fontbakery/blob/main/Lib/fontbakery/data/googlefonts/reserved_font_name_exceptions.txt) to avoid to fail the font.

The issue with this agreement is that it only allows *Google* to serve these fonts, creating vendor lock-in to the Google Fonts web service.

As far as I can tell, there are several popular third-party services, such as [Fontsource](https://fontsource.org/), [Bunny Fonts](https://fonts.bunny.net/), and [google-webfonts-helper](https://gwfh.mranftl.com/fonts), which are therefore technically *prohibited* from serving much of the Google Fonts library (they of course do so anyway).

I'm certain it's not Google's intent to create vendor lock-in to its own font hosting service--if it is, you wouldn't make all the fonts publicly available here and provide APIs for those third-party services to use. However, allowing fonts with RFNs seems to effectively do just that.

For existing fonts, it's probably very difficult to reach out to the font creators and get them to remove the RFNs from their licenses. However, for *new* fonts, going forward, I think it would be beneficial to require that there are no RFNs, with no exceptions whatsoever. Otherwise, something as simple as [downloading the font files that Google Fonts serves, and putting them on your own domain](https://blog.velocifyer.com/Posts/3,0,0,2025-8-13,+how+to+self+host+a+font+from+google+fonts.html) is technically illegal.