- From: Erik van Blokland <evb@KNOWARE.NL>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 97 20:48:16 +0200
- To: "w3 webfonts" <www-font@w3.org>
Fahrner quoting Andrew Joslin: >The outline information in the PFR is encrypted to prevent piracy. Hackers >could conceivably crack the PFR's but they'd have to collect a lot of them >and do major tweakage in Fontographer before they could assemble a maybe >complete character set including redoing hinting, character mapping and >kerning (can you spell get a life?). I think the labor involved and >difficulty in assembling COMPLETE coherent character sets will make font >pirating from PFR's a miserable occupation. The same methods Truedoc uses to assemble a font these fonts can be disassembled. Character collecting can easily be automated, especially when the whole font machine is accessible by writing a Netscape-plugin for it. Subsetting is a compression method, not a piracy preventer. Then the whole security hinges on the encryption, which can be broken in 10 minutes, as Clive has proven. This might not even be necessary when authoring software emerges that allows Truedoc fonts that arrive from one webpage to be added to another one. Recycling fontdata. Perhaps not all characters are present, but perhaps not all are needed either. Current descriptions of Truedoc/Netscape systems do not specify whether Truedoc fonts can be re-used, neither do they promise that this will not be the case in the future, neither is there a garantee that Truedoc will not be licensed to companies with shady background in type. The clever semantics of Bitstream are getting old. A file containing a typeface description is a font by any standard. Calling the Truedoc fonts 'portable font resources' is a way of being gramatically correct when saying Truedoc documents don't contain fonts. But lets not kid ourselves, for all intents and purposes, PFR's are fonts. They're just as portable as Truetype fonts or type1 fonts, and contain just as many curves and serifs. PFR relies on a Truedoc rasteriser being present on the client system, just other fonts like to be rastered by their own rasterisers. There is nothing remarkably portable about Truedoc, you still have to be in luck that some company somewhere decides to write software for your platform. Whether that's Microsoft, Adobe or Bitstream does not really matter. Their approach to intellectual property does matter. Microsoft and Adobe are at least trying to address the issues. Bitstream only invented a blanket excuse to the entire system and ignores it for the rest. Note that Bitstream has become yet another internet wannabe, and has severed most ties to their typographic past. The legal issues tied to Truedoc in most countries not USA will certainly be investigated and possibly tried in court. It's curious that Netscape is getting tied up with such a risky technology. Bitstream has used the argument that Truedoc fonts are inseperable from the document as a way to illustrate that the PFR's really are not fonts. But this is losing credibility, as PFR fonts are now downloaded _separately_ from a server 'just like a gif or jpeg'. That means that unless something incredibly complicated (signatures?) happens, PFR fonts can be linked to by any other document as well, perhaps from an entirely different domain. Then the world needs only one single PFR on a site for every typeface used in the world! Subsetting this font can be easily subverted by making a document that contains all characters. PFR fonts can be offered as incentives, they can be traded, posted, mailed, reused. It's piracy coated with a thin layer of credibility. Serious flaws that threatens all type manufacturers. As long as fonts cost money, there will be an incentive for getting them for free. Truedoc fonts in Netscape make that a whole lot easier. Better typographic capabilities for the web are quite necessary. But whether it is worth to put the whole type industry at risk for a small temporary advantage over someone else's browser is highly doubtful. erik van blokland, LettError: Typestuff letterror http://www.letterror.com
Received on Thursday, 20 February 1997 18:43:53 UTC