- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:45:39 -0700
- To: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:35 -0700, Thomas Phinney wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 17:52 -0700, Thomas Phinney wrote: > >> Of course, if you want to take Microsoft's disinterest in supporting > >> naked TTF/OTF fonts on web servers as a declaration of war, that is > >> your perogative. > > > > How else could one possibly take it? > > As a disinclination to support something that they believe would be > bad for the overall font developer ecosystem. In what way do think that they think it would be bad for the overall font developer ecosystem? I believe we've answered all of the restricted-license vendors stated concerns in counter-proposals. What do you think we missed, really? > >> significantly reducing the > >> revenue type designers get from anyone except those big corporations > >> that can't be seen participating in font piracy. > > > > That is hardly what's at stake here. > > You may be right, but what's important is that my statement is how the > large majority of font vendors perceive it. That is a political observation and I hope I have aided their perception. > That is what they're > afraid of. I would infer that Microsoft either agrees with them, or at > least thinks it's worth placating them. Evidently, sorta. Note that at least one person speaking from within monotype endorsed my counter-proposal. I think Microsoft might be over-reaching here where some font vendors might be happy without MSFT's hard-line. > For my part I don't know. It's an open question whether the increased > sales (from new uses for fonts) would outweigh the increased piracy That has nothing to do with a W3C Recommendation. You gonna try to put that in a Rationale of a Recommendation? > if > raw desktop fonts on web servers was a fully-embraced standard. The > font vendors could be right, or you could, and it's hard to tell > without simply trying it to find out. They don't want to take that > chance, really, so most are not going to permit that kind of usage in > their licensing terms any time soon. Fine, then they can simply not license their fonts for web use. The rest of us will get by, just fine. Ask Zapf. -t > Cheers, > > T >
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 02:46:19 UTC