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

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:18:12 -0700
Message-ID: <4A527824.1040507@tiro.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Christopher Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Håkon Wium Lie wrote:

> 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.

Since this would be an OT font format decision, at least it would be 
something debated in a forum in which the opinions of font developers 
and vendors are not 'pragmatically irrelevant'. Come on over to our 
standards process. I'm going to be happier fighting this out in ISO/IEC 
14496-22 than in the W3C.

So here's a question: if the OpenType / Open Font format specification 
already included licensing information of the kind that you wish to 
avoid, would you have implemented TTF/OTF font linking in Opera?

 From which follows the question: if such licensing information were to 
be added to the OpenType / Open Font format specification, would you 
remove support for TTF/OTF font linking in Opera?

These are not necessarily 'pragmatic' questions, but at this point I'm 
interested to know where leverage might apply.

John Hudson
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 22:18:56 GMT

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