The wording of the font name change requirement (3) in the current license is
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. This restriction only applies to the
primary font name as presented to the users.
From what I can tell, their intent is that you cannot call a derived font the same thing as one of their fonts, so you cannot call your font "Doulos SIL". The OFL FAQ explains (1.21) that "you must respect any names reserved by the font authors via the RFN mechanism and pick your own font name". Their discussion of RFNs explains the reasons:
The RFN mechanism is an integral part of this OFL model. Use of it is
not required, but it provides some key benefits:
Avoids collisions - it greatly reduces the likelihood that a Modified
Version would get confused with the Original Version, whether by an
end user, someone bundling the font into a separate app or collection,
or an application attempting to render a document that specifies a
Protects authors - it requires any font that bears the RFNs retain the
functionality and quality of the Original Version.
Minimizes support - it enables authors to adequately support their
fonts without the burden of troubleshooting fonts bearing the same
name that might have been poorly modified.
Encourages derivatives - it encourages separately-named branches to
exist and be properly identified so that new, interesting enhancements
can get reviewed and eventually merged back into the main project.
You can see that they do not want you to "assign" your font the same name as their reserved font name, but that does not mean you cannot mention the source font (that is, they are using "use" informally, not intended to mean "include, in any shape"). FAQ item 3.1 also says
Remember that, when authors have reserved names via the RFN mechanism,
you need to change the internal names of the font to your own font
name when making your modified version even if it is just a small
There is no attribution requirement, and the FAQ 1.1.2 explicitly says attribution is not required though it is allowed ("Font authors may appreciate being mentioned in your artwork's acknowledgements alongside the name of the font, possibly with a link to their website, but that is not required"). This supports the understanding that mentioning a font name is allowed, just not assigning (and creating an ambiguity inside the font as to whose version it is).
License condition (2) says
Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled,
redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy
contains the above copyright notice and this license.
refers to the set of files released by the Copyright Holder(s) under
this license and clearly marked as such. This may include source
files, build scripts and documentation.
refers to any derivative made by adding to, deleting, or substituting
— in part or in whole — any of the components of the Original Version,
by changing formats or by porting the Font Software to a new environment.
So a narrow reading of what they say would lead you to conclude that the license propagation requirement does not just mean "as a font". But their FAQ suggests a different intent. Point 1.1 says:
Can I use the fonts for a book or other print publication, to create
logos or other graphics or even to manufacture objects based on their
Yes. You are very welcome to do so. Authors of fonts released under
the OFL allow you to use their font software as such for any kind of
design work. No additional license or permission is required
1.1.1 Does that restrict the license or distribution of that artwork?
No. You remain the author and copyright holder of that newly derived
graphic or object. You are simply using an open font in the design
process. It is only when you redistribute, bundle or modify the font
itself that other conditions of the license have to be respected (see
below for more details).
1.13 also says
The requirement for fonts to remain under the OFL does not apply to
any document created using the fonts and their derivatives. Similarly,
creating any kind of graphic using a font under OFL does not make the
resulting artwork subject to the OFL.
The technicals of what you intend to distribute are not clear: if you're "copying code" then including a license would be required, and if you're just "using the artwork" then it probably is not (given the evidence of the FAQ).
License linking is explained in 1.10
The only situation in which an OFL font can be distributed without the
text of the OFL (either in a separate file or in font metadata), is
when a font is embedded in a document or bundled within a program. In
the case of metadata included within a font, it is legally sufficient
to include only a link to the text of the OFL on
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL, but we strongly recommend against this.
Most modern font formats include metadata fields that will accept the
full OFL text, and full inclusion increases the likelihood that users
will understand and properly apply the license.
They do not have a particularly stable web structure (things are constantly being renamed and moved, so URL references are probably only good for a few years).
(in accordance with the requirements of their FAQ, I hereby declare: "From the OFL FAQ (OFL-FAQ.txt), copyright (c) 2005-2017 SIL International. Used by permission. http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web")