W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2008

Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:52:11 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0811070752h6b870440jfdde5bfece46e7f6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Thomas Phinney wrote:
> > I believe this isn't DRM, but DRE (and even more so in the new
> > "compromise proposal"). But of course calling it DRM makes it easier for
> > W3C folks to have a knee-jerk reaction against it.
>
> DRE is evil. Easily-circumvented DRE is pointless and evil.
>

Wait a moment now, I don't think one can reasonably consider DRE evil.  At
least, not anymore evil than copyright itself.

The issue is that this isn't DRE in any way.  A CC license is DRE.  Applying
such DRE to, say, a picture merely involves putting the license notice with
the picture.  Normal copyright law is then used to 'protect' the picture in
the same way an ordinary copyrighted picture would be.

The moment you start doing technical modifications to the file to prevent
people from using it, you're performing DRM.  You are actively managing your
audience's rights wrt to the work, rather than merely expressing them.

That said, DRM is evil, and easily-circumvented DRM is pointless and evil.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 15:52:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:16 GMT