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

Re: Font license vs. conversion between font formats

From: Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:29:08 +0200
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7DF01B1F-4A17-4F55-98DB-A76CAE488B0C@letterror.com>
To: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>

On 9 jul 2009, at 11:00, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:

> I'm trying to argue that if plain TTF/OTF is not acceptable format
> because it does not offer protection, then any other freely usable
> format is not acceptable either.

As several posters on this list already pointed out that this is not a  
discussion of absolutes. There is no absolute security in any scheme.  
That doesn't mean there is no reason for things like certificates,  
https, public-key, whatever (as general examples, please don't  
interpret this as a case for any of those specifically for fonts),

> As a result, if font foundries are not
> willing to license for TTF/OTF usage, they will not be willing to
> license to any system except a full-blown DRM (which does not exists).


Did you talk to any foundries? We did, and our .webfont proposal  
reflects that, are explicitly *not* asking for DRM. They *are* willing  
to support a scheme which puts one or two "bulkheads" between the raw  
font and the end user. Enough to discourage casual users (of which  
there are billions), enough to be able to inform users about relevant  
licensing information. Our proposal does not attempt to thwart  
hackers, developers, collectors, (of which there are considerably  
fewer) because there is no point.

Is this too pragmatic to consider?

Erik
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 09:41:00 GMT

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