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

Re: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:44:31 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600908022044u5bdb6113j70a79966b9905f52@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:33 PM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:

> Yes, the reality of the format and how it is implemented affects how EULAs
> are written. That is true of pretty much any technology involving licensed
> content. And this is what I am saying: font makers who want to license fonts
> for use with a given format will write EULAs that enable authors to use
> their fonts in the format as specified and implemented. We've been doing
> this with every font format that's come along in the past three decades. It
> is typically the case, at least for fonts, that the format affects the EULA
> *not the other way round*.


Will font vendors write EULAs that enable authors to use their fonts in the
bare font formats we already support in Firefox? Apparently not, so what you
say is not universally true.

If EOTL is only practical to deploy in a way that allows "hotlinking" for
all users on IE<=8, will font vendors bend their EULAs to permit such
deployment? That's my question. If you think the answer is obviously yes,
that's interesting news.

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 Monday, 3 August 2009 03:45:11 GMT

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