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

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Christopher Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:39:35 +0600
Message-ID: <4A50F367.5070307@gmx.net>
To: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>

Of course if MSIE were to agree to support OTF linking, as far as I can 
see there seems to be nothing preventing those responsible for 
maintaining the OTF spec (MS & Adobe) from including something like a 
machine readable EEULA table <http://www.eeulaa.org/> in a future 
version of *that* spec. A later version of MSIE might then enforce 
whatever restrictions were in that table (if present in a font).

- CF


Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach John Hudson:
> 
>  > But your comments imply that the only resistance to TTF/OTF linking is 
>  > from Microsoft. In terms of browser makers, this may be the case, but 
>  > there is also resistance to TTF/OTF linking from the makers, sellers and 
>  > owners of fonts
> 
> Indeed, there are various kinds of resistance from font vendors. I
> met many of them at Atypi in St Petersburg last year. Some object to
> all forms of web-based distribution, some want strong DRM, some want a
> token technical barrier, and some say that TTF/OTF will work fine
> (given the right license terms).
> 
> Personally, I think that license terms is a better enforcer that
> technical means, but I'm also open for a technical solution:
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0412.html
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -håkon
Received on Sunday, 5 July 2009 18:40:23 GMT

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