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

RE: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:43:24 -0400
To: <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: <info@ascenderfonts.com>, "'Thomas Phinney'" <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008801ca125a$3a24b040$ae6e10c0$@com>
Friday, July 31, 2009 Robert Callahan Robert@ocallahan.org:

 

>What about all the IE<=8 user agents? Seems like your approach would violate Ascender's license until they go away completely. If you >only use EOTL once all IE<=8 user agents go away, it's useless.

 

Here’s my thinking: If someone has a page or pages that are trying to piggyback off of my license by linking to my copy of Cambria Regular,  yes that works for <IE9. But if IE 9 (or Firefox 4) enforces same origin, where does that leave Mr. Piggyback? Unless I allow it, he isn’t getting my font file delivered to the people viewing his pages in the latest browsers and so he might as well abandon his scheme. Why is it unreasonable for me to do nothing about a “threat” that no longer exists except in theory? In what way is Ascender being harmed?

I suppose what the legal language is aiming for is an option to go after someone who egregiously sets up a free font server. But that’s not going to be me, so I don’t care. But if that’s the point, I wish they would be more precise about it.

I think it’s unrealistic in the extreme to expect ordinary web authors to become IP cops for font producers. Just to use a font? Not worth the trouble. And I think the market will shake them of that notion quickly. If someone is really serious about enforcing this, I’ll switch to another font from another company or stick with “web safe”.

I feel bad for font producers in that they can’t wrap their software up in an executable file like most software makers and so must rely greatly on their EULA’s which, with ordinary software, nobody even bothers to read. It’s tough to fight force of habit.

And Rob, I don’t blame you a bit for questioning this. It should be questioned. And the questioning will continue to go on. Customers are entitled to know where they stand, in plain English.

It could be worse. Ascender’s prices could be unreasonable. They aren’t. (IMHO).

 

Regards,

 

rich

 

From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:27 PM
To: rfink@readableweb.com
Cc: info@ascenderfonts.com; www-font
Subject: Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

 

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com> wrote:

“reasonably restricts access to Font Software for use in any way by web pages not originating from the CUSTOMER Web Server (For example; by using referrer checking to prevent hotlinking or deeplinking).” 

Well, what’s reasonable?

Once user agents that support EOTL are out in the market enforcing same-origin restrictions, it seems quite reasonable for me to do nothing at all at the server level except let those browsers do their thing and *not* specifically enable linking in the htaccess file.


What about all the IE<=8 user agents? Seems like your approach would violate Ascender's license until they go away completely. If you only use EOTL once all IE<=8 user agents go away, it's useless.

Rob 

-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 03:44:08 GMT

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