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

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:22:18 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
CC: Christopher Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020BFB04@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]


>Personally, I'm not comfortable with formats that add more licensing
>information, even if the corresponding standard says it can be
>ignored. It seems quite easy to construct a case where the browser, by
>ignoring digital rights in the files, breaks DMCA-like laws and is
>therefore a "circumvention device". I'm not convinced that the
>standard would trump the law in court.

Any raw TTF file may already contain an embedding bit set by the license owner, yet we know that ignoring it does not
constitute circumvention [1]. It's unclear to me how any of the alternatives proposed here - including rootstrings
set by the *licensee* - would alter browser vendors' exposure but, like you, I am not a lawyer.

Expert opinion on this specific matter - i.e. digital fonts - could be of great help in assessing the
actual relevance of such concerns. Until then, they remain, imo, too speculative to be technically actionable. Has Opera
commissioned such legal research ?

[1] http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2005/01/24/ed-ill-truetype-embedding-bits-not-effective-technological-measures/
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 18:23:01 GMT

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