Re: What constitutes protection [was: About using CORS]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Garrick Van Buren <garrick@kernest.com>wrote:

> Sylvain,
> > The awkwardness already exists. Firefox has limited fonts to the same
> > origin since the beginning. It sounds like no one has complained.
>
> Yes - and the day I upgraded, it broke a significant portion of my work.
>

I guess you mean you upgraded from one nightly Firefox build to another,
since we never shipped a release that didn't have a default same-origin
check. Did you file a bug or provide other feedback describing your
situation and why the check was a problem for you?

Now the conversation is around recommending a single technical solution to
> accommodate the thousands of different licensing terms?


No, we are offering a tool that will make it very convenient for authors to
implement the check required by the majority of non-free font licenses.

If you want to use a font with some exotic license that requires something
other than a same-origin check, you're no worse off than you were before.

It is conceivable that a license exists that would be violated because of
> this recommendation.
>

I can't think of a realistic example. Can you give one?

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]