Re: OpenType fsType and WOFF (was: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes)

Given that Restricted License permissions are treated accordingly (or expected to be treated accordingly) by PDF-generating apps like Acrobat, I doubt the intention is as you're speculating. It's a valid point, given the wording, but I think it's really just unfortunate wording in the OT spec.

In other words: Is there really any doubt that the intention was that applications should never embed fonts with that setting? Certainly the intention was not to say, "When fonts have this setting, it's up to the user and the applications should just do whatever."

-Christopher


On May 11, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Jonathan Kew wrote:

> On 11 May 2010, at 19:27, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> 
>> However, the question that I would like to have answered in the first place is regarding the current definition of "Restricted License Embedding". I always understood it to be the only one that clearly and unambiguously limits the use of a font to the licensed copy you have installed locally, with no embedding or any kind of font data exchange allowed.
> 
> But as I read it, the "Restricted License Embedding" bit does not actually "limit the use" as suggested here. From the OT spec:
> 
> "Fonts that have only this bit set must not be modified, embedded or exchanged in any manner without first obtaining permission of the legal owner."
> 
> which means that you have to refer to the license, EULA, or some other source of information to determine whether the legal owner has given permission for whatever kind of font data exchange or other use you want to do. All the bit says is that such permission is required; it does nothing to help tools determine whether the user has in fact obtained it.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 21:54:45 UTC