- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:38:21 -0700
- 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 UTC