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

Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:24:07 +0000
Message-ID: <2285a9d20811120424x48434961vd6394deff877eb37@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

2008/11/12 Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>:
>
>> >> this proposal by fontlab attemps to do so: http://www.eeulaa.org/
>> >> open_type.html
>> >
>> > Which has its own issues, unfortunately.
>>
>> can you elaborate? :-)
>
> Adobe's legal counsel would not want Adobe fonts to use the
> EEULAA as currently formulated. Essentially, it attempts to create
> a parallel "abstract" of the license terms. While this seems great
> in principle, the legal concern is that it would compete with the
> EULA (license), and that there should only be one license, else
> it will create confusion - possibly in the courts as well as in the
> minds of users.

As I have suggested over in parallel discussions of this topic in the
OpenType or ATypI list, I think displaying the full license text to
users within one click when a linked font is used (and having this
click made very prominent if URL root strings are in place and don't
match is the ideal solution, and one I think we could build consensus
over.

Informing users about metadata is "Digital Rights Expression."
Enforcing functionality based on metadata is "Digital Rights
Management" and isn't acceptable for web technologies.

Adam Twardoch suggested a problem with my suggestion is translation.
The EEULAA could potentially solve by having all the text associated
with EEULAA translated by OS vendors. I think the legal risk EEULAA
imposes outweighs the inconvenience of translation.

Best,
Dave
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 12:24:43 GMT

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