W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: EOT Lite - possible outcomes

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:38:21 -0700
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0907021138g4319a14dyd79ebd814f0d3d67@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-font@w3.org
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Mikko
Rantalainen<mikko.rantalainen@peda.net> wrote:
> Thomas Phinney wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Mikko
>> Rantalainen<mikko.rantalainen@peda.net> wrote:
>>> You do realize that this does not prevent linking and using EOT Lite
>>> font files without a proper license and there's no protection of any
>>> kind except that one cannot simply copy EOT Lite font file into his
>>> operating system's font folder? One can copy an EOT Lite font file from
>>> a remote server to his own server and it would work just fine.
>>
>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>>
>> I expect that EOT Lite would be a non-starter for most font vendors
>> for this reason.
>
> Do you think that font vendors want a DRM system? Because that's pretty
> much what is missing from EOT Lite compared to full blown EOT...
>
> (I'd rather continue this discussion in public at www-font@w3.org. Feel
> free to copy or quote this mail there.)

Oops, accidentally hit reply instead of reply-all. Back on the mailing
list now, thanks.

Setting aside the question of "what constitutes DRM per se?"

I think quite a few font vendors, probably most, want some protection
against the font being grabbed and re-used on another web site, if it
requires no modification and there is no "garden fence" in place.

EOT Lite has a garden fence against desktop use (the font needs to be
converted), but not against web use.

I should add that I really am just guessing on this one. I will go ask
some folks in the font vendor community and report back....

Regards,

T
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 18:38:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:02 GMT