- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 20:45:49 -0500
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-font@w3.org
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 16:08 -0700, Thomas Phinney wrote: >> If I were representing a type foundry, being >> aware of this I sure as heck wouldn't try to initiate DMCA action >> against a browser vendor for ignoring root strings in EOT Classic >> fonts. Of course, people can initiate legal actions on any basis they >> like, but I would be surprised to see any in this case. > > A very simple solution is for the EOTL backers > to make a positive statement that other browsers, > if they are going to do EOTL because of a MUST, > then SHOULD support all of EOTC (and have patent > protection in doing so) because that rounds out > the degree of compatibility with IE<=8. I'm not seeing how that follows. Can you elaborate why supporting EOTC has any effect, positive or negative, on EOTL's risk of DMCA action? ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 01:46:57 UTC