W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2009

Re: New work on fonts at W3C

From: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:35:02 +0100
Message-Id: <761C0391-FBB1-405A-AFF2-25A8C2053FF8@jfkew.plus.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 22 Jun 2009, at 21:47, Aryeh Gregor wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan  
> Kew<jonathan@jfkew.plus.com> wrote:
>> On the other hand, given that current (or very near-future)  
>> versions of all
>> the main non-MS browsers will be supporting .ttf/.otf files (and  
>> not .eot
>> files), perhaps foundries that are willing to license fonts for web  
>> use
>> should consider John Daggett's recent suggestion, which as I  
>> understand it
>> would work with today's browsers: create the desired "fences"  
>> simply by
>> appropriate font naming. For example, the Monotype EULA that  
>> permits .eot
>> use on a web server could also permit .otf use on a web server  
>> provided the
>> font is internally renamed along the lines John suggested. That  
>> would (it
>> seems to me) serve as a pretty clear "No Trespassing" sign, too,  
>> and would
>> allow sites to be both IE-compatible and FF/Opera/...-compatible in  
>> their
>> font deployment. Used in this way, direct linking to .otf files  
>> need not be
>> suitable *only* for free fonts.
>
> However, this would allow anyone to copy the font over to their domain
> and have it work on their site (not necessarily knowing that this
> violates its license terms).

But the point is that if font name is something like "LICENSED FOR  
SITE.COM USE ONLY", would-be copiers/users can hardly fail to notice  
it. Yes, people can copy it and use the file, but they'll be aware  
that they are trespassing.

JK
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 21:35:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:18 GMT