Re: WOFF without SOR?

Sylvain wrote:

> A recurring problem here is that the word 'protection' implies very different 
> Things to different people. All WOFF really gets you is that users can't simply
> do a right-click-Save As to grab a font with an out-of-the-box browser.

That is one of three things that WOFF does that makes it appeal to font 
foundries. There are three areas of concern for foundries, and WOFF 
addresses each of them in a way that the majority of foundries has 
indicated is an acceptable way that encourages licensing of fonts for 
use on the web. In descending order of perceived importance:

1. Unlicensed use of existing desktop fonts as web fonts.
Most of the font developers I've spoken to, at TypeCon and elsewhere, 
agree that this is the biggest concern, because there would be no way to 
effectively police this. This is addressed in WOFF by the format level 
distinction between webfonts and desktop fonts, and by the metadata, 
which makes it easier to ensure that web font use is legitimately licensed.

2. Unlicensed linking of a web font on one domain to display content on 
a different domain.
This is what the SOR requirement addresses.

3. Unlicensed desktop use of fonts garnered from the web.
This is what Sylvain refers to above. It is the weakest aspect of the 
'protection', but it is, currently at least, also of least concern.


For the foundries, this is a package of minimal measures to protect to 
some degree against unlicensed use and to make it easier to identify 
such use. As Sylvain pointed out in an earlier message: the foundries 
have responded very positively to this package -- so positively that 
we're now faced with backwards compatibility issues before the 
specification is even finalised! --, but because it is perceived as a 
package, non-implementation of any part of it is of considerable concern.

JH

Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 01:13:02 UTC