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

RE: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Bill Davis <info@ascenderfonts.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:30:49 -0500
To: "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
Cc: "'Sylvain Galineau'" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, <robert@ocallahan.org>
Message-ID: <010701ca1204$a66d71c0$f3485540$@com>
< On Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:12 PM Robert O'Callahan wrote:

< 

< Bill seems to be saying that they do, in fact, require *some* kind of access control: 

< http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0771.html 

< Although even his clarification isn't as clear as I would like.

< 

< Bill, can you answer this question: if I put a null-rootstring Ascender EOT font on my 

< public server, does Ascender consider me to be compliant with the font license, or not?

< 

< Rob

< 

< < On Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:20 PM Sylvain Galineau wrote:

< <

< < Yes, it may pay to get this clear. However, this is a bit of a contradiction with one 

< < of the main arguments against rootstrings: their practical usability. If they’re so hard 

< < and/or expensive to manage in practice, then they’re not an attractive way for users to 

< < comply with such a bit of license. We can’t say EOT’s rootstrings are practically 

< < undeployable then turn around and say that well, EOTL will just use rootstrings for 

< < all that massive installed base that checks them. 

< <

< < So whether this can work may come down to the license language. If it requires 

< < same-origin check then the installed base benefit is hugely offset.

 

Rob,

 

I’ll try to be more clear. 

 

Our EULA will require that the licensee (the web author/designer) reasonably restrict access to the EOT Lite font to prevent hotlinking or deeplinking.

 

To answer your question, if you employed a technique such as http referer you would be compliant.

 

Bill
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 17:27:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT